Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:45:45 -0500 From: Barney Wolff <barney@pit.databus.com> To: Mark.Andrews@isc.org Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4.7-R-p3: j.root-servers.net Message-ID: <20030127014545.GA63665@pit.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <200301262357.h0QNvOEN056460@drugs.dv.isc.org> References: <20030126230257.GA62541@pit.databus.com> <200301262357.h0QNvOEN056460@drugs.dv.isc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 10:57:24AM +1100, Mark.Andrews@isc.org wrote: > > Firstly there is no proof that it will actually increase the load > on the roots. It may well decrease the load. The analysis has not > been done. > > Secondly it is more robust. You are no longer dependent on having > to be able to reach a root server when your nameserver starts. > > Thirdly the vast majority (>90%) of the queries to the roots result > in negative answers. These are cached for a much shorter period > than the positive answers. > > Forth you don't need to have every one of your nameservers talking > to the root servers. You can use one server to get the zone and > use it to distribute the zone to your other servers. Well! When ISC officially endorses this technique, by distributing bind with it set up as the default, I'll be pleased to change my mind. Until then, not. -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030127014545.GA63665>