The reasoning as I remember it: If I ask the server for vix.su a question,
and it helpfully provides an answer in redbarn.org, ...
That's not what Warren's proposing. Did you read the draft?
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net
Tuesday, January 13, 2015 8:19 PM
... I'm surprised that no-one has yet commented on the 'Let's just co-opt
the Z bit for this' - I'm guessing that folk are not sure if I'm kidding or
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:17 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
First, for a same transaction, the cost from using TCP may be more than the
gain from the queries you save, which may ultimately let the performance
become even worse. Do you have any consideration on this?
And also, if
Warren Kumari mailto:war...@kumari.net
Tuesday, January 13, 2015 8:19 PM
... I'm surprised that no-one has yet commented on the 'Let's just
co-opt the Z bit for this' - I'm guessing that folk are not sure if
I'm kidding or not, and are scared to ask :-) W
i think you're not kidding, but
Warren Kumari mailto:war...@kumari.net
Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:22 PM
... I wrote it because it seemed interesting to me.
i think you should do a deeper cost:benefit dive before proposing new
signalling on-the-wire.
i've long believed that just as A and are optional
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:08:00PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
you've left the box i thought we were standing in. CNAME chains are
already returned by authorities, if in your above example, the alias and
the canonical name are served by the same authority server.
Didn't we decide a while back
records thrown
away by the recursive servers will be very low, by real data trace or
mathematical model.
Guangqing Deng
CNNIC
From: Warren Kumari
Date: 2015-01-14 13:22
To: Paul Vixie
CC: dnsop; Paul Wouters; John Levine
Subject: Re: [DNSOP]答复: Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-wkumari
Evan Hunt mailto:e...@isc.org
Tuesday, January 13, 2015 10:41 PM
Didn't we decide a while back that this was a bad idea, that resolvers
needed to stop trusting CNAME chains sent by authorities, and that
authorities really ought to stop sending them?
yes, we did, unless dnssec signatures
In message cakr6gn3ohsbmm9wcize8cg03ze2-nxcbvl4gnvj+k0gmtpl...@mail.gmail.com
, George Michaelson writes:
Mark.. can you amplify a bit on:
FORMERR will just cause the nameserver to think that EDNS is not
supported. This is not a issue unless there are signed zones and
the resolver is
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Davey Song (宋林健) wrote:
As to the draft itself, there are two questions:
First, for a same transaction, the cost from using TCP may be more than the
gain from the queries you save, which may ultimately let the performance
become even worse. Do you have any consideration on
In message alpine.lfd.2.10.1501130909220.4...@bofh.nohats.ca, Paul Wouters wr
ites:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Davey Song () wrote:
As to the draft itself, there are two questions:
First, for a same transaction, the cost from using TCP may be more than
the gain from the queries you save,
Mark.. can you amplify a bit on:
FORMERR will just cause the nameserver to think that EDNS is not
supported. This is not a issue unless there are signed zones and
the resolver is validating.
Because somewhere north of 10% of the world now validates..
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Mark
Hi Warren
It's good idea that the authority DNS be smart enough to predict or
configured to package all the information for a URL as a whole object (like
a webpage). It will reduce the latency for user.
As to the draft itself, there are two questions:
First, for a same transaction, the cost
13 matches
Mail list logo
