NMControl vs DNSChain

Namecoin, NMControl
Post Reply
grewalsatinder
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 8:43 am

NMControl vs DNSChain

Post by grewalsatinder » Mon May 09, 2016 9:00 am

I have tested and used DNSChain, and I like it. :)

Today I tested NMControl, which works as well.

What I like about NMControl is lightweight on system and no need of having any DNS Service installed on system to point DNS settings to 127.0.0.1:53, which is the case with DNSChain.

What other differences there are between DNSChain and NMControl ?

Which should I prefer?

DNSChain as of now doesn't support IPv6 .bit resolve queries (to my knowledge), does NMControl support ?

Cheers
Satinder

biolizard89
Posts: 1977
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: NMControl vs DNSChain

Post by biolizard89 » Mon May 16, 2016 11:40 pm

Personally I prefer ncdns: https://github.com/hlandau/ncdns

It follows standards much more closely than NMControl and (I think) DNSChain. At the moment, ease of install is somewhat worse than NMControl, which is why it's not yet available at https://namecoin.org (and also probably makes it less suitable than NMControl for you, given that you appear to prefer automated setup).

I'm unaware of any bugs in ncdns that might impact IPv6 -- IPv6 support is in the code, so if it doesn't work, it's a bug.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

grewalsatinder
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 8:43 am

Re: NMControl vs DNSChain

Post by grewalsatinder » Sun Jun 19, 2016 11:34 pm

biolizard89 wrote:Personally I prefer ncdns: https://github.com/hlandau/ncdns

It follows standards much more closely than NMControl and (I think) DNSChain. At the moment, ease of install is somewhat worse than NMControl, which is why it's not yet available at https://namecoin.org (and also probably makes it less suitable than NMControl for you, given that you appear to prefer automated setup).

I'm unaware of any bugs in ncdns that might impact IPv6 -- IPv6 support is in the code, so if it doesn't work, it's a bug.
Thanks Jeremy,

I am adding both ncdns and DNSChain to my project as .bit DNS resolver.

I tested ncdns and it resolves IPv4 and IPv6 .bit domains with legacy specs as well.
DNSChain resolves IPv4, but with new specs. I added IPv6 resolving code in my own repo and will be using that repo to include in my project.

Will be putting option in my project giving users option to choose their .bit DNS resolver through Web UI. With either of the .bit DNS resolver service they should be able to access .bit websites setup with IPv4 and IPv6. I needed IPv6 support mainly because I'm including cjcns as feature to my project, and cjdns only works with IPv6.

ncdns will be the default .bit DNS resolver service, as it uses less RAM than DNSChain when the service starts, and it has the required feature which project needs.

This is what I'm working on: https://github.com/satindergrewal/Super ... lpha-0.0.3

biolizard89
Posts: 1977
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: NMControl vs DNSChain

Post by biolizard89 » Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:33 am

grewalsatinder wrote:
biolizard89 wrote:Personally I prefer ncdns: https://github.com/hlandau/ncdns

It follows standards much more closely than NMControl and (I think) DNSChain. At the moment, ease of install is somewhat worse than NMControl, which is why it's not yet available at https://namecoin.org (and also probably makes it less suitable than NMControl for you, given that you appear to prefer automated setup).

I'm unaware of any bugs in ncdns that might impact IPv6 -- IPv6 support is in the code, so if it doesn't work, it's a bug.
Thanks Jeremy,

I am adding both ncdns and DNSChain to my project as .bit DNS resolver.

I tested ncdns and it resolves IPv4 and IPv6 .bit domains with legacy specs as well.
DNSChain resolves IPv4, but with new specs. I added IPv6 resolving code in my own repo and will be using that repo to include in my project.

Will be putting option in my project giving users option to choose their .bit DNS resolver through Web UI. With either of the .bit DNS resolver service they should be able to access .bit websites setup with IPv4 and IPv6. I needed IPv6 support mainly because I'm including cjcns as feature to my project, and cjdns only works with IPv6.

ncdns will be the default .bit DNS resolver service, as it uses less RAM than DNSChain when the service starts, and it has the required feature which project needs.

This is what I'm working on: https://github.com/satindergrewal/Super ... lpha-0.0.3
May I ask what you mean by "legacy specs" and "new specs"? ncdns implements the latest Namecoin spec, and is probably a lot more compliant to IETF specs than DNSChain. Also, if there's a useful feature in DNSChain that ncdns doesn't have, let us know.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

grewalsatinder
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 8:43 am

Re: NMControl vs DNSChain

Post by grewalsatinder » Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:57 am

biolizard89 wrote:
grewalsatinder wrote:
biolizard89 wrote:Personally I prefer ncdns: https://github.com/hlandau/ncdns

It follows standards much more closely than NMControl and (I think) DNSChain. At the moment, ease of install is somewhat worse than NMControl, which is why it's not yet available at https://namecoin.org (and also probably makes it less suitable than NMControl for you, given that you appear to prefer automated setup).

I'm unaware of any bugs in ncdns that might impact IPv6 -- IPv6 support is in the code, so if it doesn't work, it's a bug.
Thanks Jeremy,

I am adding both ncdns and DNSChain to my project as .bit DNS resolver.

I tested ncdns and it resolves IPv4 and IPv6 .bit domains with legacy specs as well.
DNSChain resolves IPv4, but with new specs. I added IPv6 resolving code in my own repo and will be using that repo to include in my project.

Will be putting option in my project giving users option to choose their .bit DNS resolver through Web UI. With either of the .bit DNS resolver service they should be able to access .bit websites setup with IPv4 and IPv6. I needed IPv6 support mainly because I'm including cjcns as feature to my project, and cjdns only works with IPv6.

ncdns will be the default .bit DNS resolver service, as it uses less RAM than DNSChain when the service starts, and it has the required feature which project needs.

This is what I'm working on: https://github.com/satindergrewal/Super ... lpha-0.0.3
May I ask what you mean by "legacy specs" and "new specs"? ncdns implements the latest Namecoin spec, and is probably a lot more compliant to IETF specs than DNSChain. Also, if there's a useful feature in DNSChain that ncdns doesn't have, let us know.

I was pointing to name mapping JSON string. You can refer to this github issue on DNSChain: https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain/issues/4

biolizard89
Posts: 1977
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: NMControl vs DNSChain

Post by biolizard89 » Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:15 pm

grewalsatinder wrote:
biolizard89 wrote:
grewalsatinder wrote:
biolizard89 wrote:Personally I prefer ncdns: https://github.com/hlandau/ncdns

It follows standards much more closely than NMControl and (I think) DNSChain. At the moment, ease of install is somewhat worse than NMControl, which is why it's not yet available at https://namecoin.org (and also probably makes it less suitable than NMControl for you, given that you appear to prefer automated setup).

I'm unaware of any bugs in ncdns that might impact IPv6 -- IPv6 support is in the code, so if it doesn't work, it's a bug.
Thanks Jeremy,

I am adding both ncdns and DNSChain to my project as .bit DNS resolver.

I tested ncdns and it resolves IPv4 and IPv6 .bit domains with legacy specs as well.
DNSChain resolves IPv4, but with new specs. I added IPv6 resolving code in my own repo and will be using that repo to include in my project.

Will be putting option in my project giving users option to choose their .bit DNS resolver through Web UI. With either of the .bit DNS resolver service they should be able to access .bit websites setup with IPv4 and IPv6. I needed IPv6 support mainly because I'm including cjcns as feature to my project, and cjdns only works with IPv6.

ncdns will be the default .bit DNS resolver service, as it uses less RAM than DNSChain when the service starts, and it has the required feature which project needs.

This is what I'm working on: https://github.com/satindergrewal/Super ... lpha-0.0.3
May I ask what you mean by "legacy specs" and "new specs"? ncdns implements the latest Namecoin spec, and is probably a lot more compliant to IETF specs than DNSChain. Also, if there's a useful feature in DNSChain that ncdns doesn't have, let us know.

I was pointing to name mapping JSON string. You can refer to this github issue on DNSChain: https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain/issues/4
Ah, I see. So ncdns would be implementing a superset of DNSChain's functionality, no? Is there a reason that you need DNSChain still?
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

grewalsatinder
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 8:43 am

Re: NMControl vs DNSChain

Post by grewalsatinder » Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:24 am

biolizard89 wrote:
grewalsatinder wrote:
biolizard89 wrote:
grewalsatinder wrote:
biolizard89 wrote:Personally I prefer ncdns: https://github.com/hlandau/ncdns

It follows standards much more closely than NMControl and (I think) DNSChain. At the moment, ease of install is somewhat worse than NMControl, which is why it's not yet available at https://namecoin.org (and also probably makes it less suitable than NMControl for you, given that you appear to prefer automated setup).

I'm unaware of any bugs in ncdns that might impact IPv6 -- IPv6 support is in the code, so if it doesn't work, it's a bug.
Thanks Jeremy,

I am adding both ncdns and DNSChain to my project as .bit DNS resolver.

I tested ncdns and it resolves IPv4 and IPv6 .bit domains with legacy specs as well.
DNSChain resolves IPv4, but with new specs. I added IPv6 resolving code in my own repo and will be using that repo to include in my project.

Will be putting option in my project giving users option to choose their .bit DNS resolver through Web UI. With either of the .bit DNS resolver service they should be able to access .bit websites setup with IPv4 and IPv6. I needed IPv6 support mainly because I'm including cjcns as feature to my project, and cjdns only works with IPv6.

ncdns will be the default .bit DNS resolver service, as it uses less RAM than DNSChain when the service starts, and it has the required feature which project needs.

This is what I'm working on: https://github.com/satindergrewal/Super ... lpha-0.0.3
May I ask what you mean by "legacy specs" and "new specs"? ncdns implements the latest Namecoin spec, and is probably a lot more compliant to IETF specs than DNSChain. Also, if there's a useful feature in DNSChain that ncdns doesn't have, let us know.

I was pointing to name mapping JSON string. You can refer to this github issue on DNSChain: https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain/issues/4
Ah, I see. So ncdns would be implementing a superset of DNSChain's functionality, no? Is there a reason that you need DNSChain still?
If ncdns is already covering basic required features to resolve both IPv4 and IPv6, it's good enough to just include it in my project. And I have already included it as a required system service as companion to Namecoin service to SuperMesh project.

https://github.com/satindergrewal/Super ... lpha-0.0.3

I was just thinking to have a backup name resolving service just in case. But, I put a hold on status to include DNSChain, and will evaluate later what different or extra does it provide which ncdns doesn't or might not.

The only difference is DNSChain is developed using coffee script (javascript), and ncdns is developed using Go language. I feel more comfortable using Javascript language in case I need to add or improve some service, like DNSChain I can do some changes and improvement to some extent, which I feel not so easy for me as I don't have much experience with either Go, C or C++.

:)

Post Reply