In article <mailman.608.1267031100.21153.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>, Chris Thompson <c...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 24 2010, Evan Hunt wrote: > > >> Thats not the case with DNScurve. Again I stress - over 20 billion > >> requests per day at OpenDNS are DNScurve compatible. The traffic in > >> DNSSEC is chicken feed compared to DNScurve. > > > >ORG and GOV and quite a lot of the ccTLD's are "DNSSEC compatible", so I > >don't actually think it'd be much of a horserace if compatibility is all > >you're looking for. What'll be interesting is how many queries the root > >and TLD servers start seeing for uz5*/NS. > > If OpenDNS really believe that DNScurve is the way of the future, why > don't they have such NS records for opendns.com? And what effect will 54-character names for nameservers have when the description recommends against using TCP or UDP with packets longer than 512 bytes (EDNS0, anyone?). Actually the idea of encoding your public key your name, whilst superficially neat, sounds like a killer to me. How will I ever remember which server is which? Has anyone found any uz5* servers out there yet? Sam _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
