> We run our own DNS infrastructure on-premise which might seem a bit unusual lately.
I don't think running your own DNS is too uncommon, especially if you have a lot of on-premise hardware that changes somewhat frequently. However, if you do this don't run BIND. We found PowerDNS to be much better in terms of features, user-friendliness, and documentation. Having backends that aren't zonefiles is a huge win. I've heard good things about Unbind, but haven't used it in a big environment yet (>1000 machines).
I'm a "BIND lover" and have been since the 90s and still use it for public-facing authoritative name servers. In their case, though, it definitely sounds like they should consider PowerDNS. It allows for various backends, including SQL and custom ones, which might fit in well with the "data store" they mentioned. Instead of all the cronjobs and pushing and pulling, they might be able to point the authoritative nameservers directly at their "data store" and cut out a lot of that "plumbing" (it's impossible to know without more details, of course).
Also, unless there's a huge amount of DNS data changing every 15 mins, they might gain some speed-ups from sending dynamic DNS updates to the authoritative nameservers and/or using IXFRs instead of AXFRs.
(n.b.: unbound only handles recursive DNS, not authoritative.)
> (n.b.: unbound only handles recursive DNS, not authoritative.)
Yeah, but as you probably also know the PowerDNS recurser is separate, so there's no reason PowerDNS + Unbound couldn't also be a great combination. Heck, I might even choose that combo so resolvers only have unbound installed and can never act as authoritative servers.
I don't think running your own DNS is too uncommon, especially if you have a lot of on-premise hardware that changes somewhat frequently. However, if you do this don't run BIND. We found PowerDNS to be much better in terms of features, user-friendliness, and documentation. Having backends that aren't zonefiles is a huge win. I've heard good things about Unbind, but haven't used it in a big environment yet (>1000 machines).