Hi,
> But, to my understanding a too short TTL will do harm to cache server
> performance
> esp. the amount of RR cached is so large that BIND have to wait for
> swapping I/O
> and re-fetching those timeout RR again.
I think you missed the main point of the report, it does not say that
low TTLs a
Hi,
>The paper doesn't pass any judgement on types of lookups, but obviously
>not all DNS lookups are equal from the end user perspective.
In our observation, looking for IP address consists 70% of our cache server load,
MX consists of 14% and PTR only occupies 5%. And, on the other hand, the
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Jon Snyder
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: BellSouth: please stop advertising 209.152.54.0/23
>
>
> BellSouth is advertising 209.152.54.0/23, which is part
sh ip bgp 66.164.232.1
BGP routing table entry for 66.164.232.0/24, version 19268449
Paths: (3 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Not advertised to any peer
701 6389 6197
205.171.0.96 (metric 10) from 205.171.0.151 (205.171.0.151)
Origin IGP, metric 1, localpref
At 10:30 AM 8/10/2004 -0700, Jon Snyder wrote:
I love customers that tell me .. "oh .. our network has not changed in
years"
yes .. our NOC # has changed .. it's 800-317-3343 ..
I tried to call you but could not find a # :*)
was trying to verify that this customer is/was not dual homed to us
BellSouth is advertising 209.152.54.0/23, which is part of 209.152.32.0/19
owned by someone else who isn't a BellSouth customer. If anyone from
BellSouth is listening, can you please make this stop? Or if you have a
working contact at BellSouth please let me know. The number for their NOC
liste
Hello.
Redistribute ospf xx subnets has some unusual behavior
compared to other redistribution mechanisms. Instead of
dumping everything from ospf into the other routing
protocol, it only does a subset of routes. (If I remember
right, only "internal" routes.)
I think the command you probably w
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:17:17 -, Paul Vixie said:
> i suspect it's not the number of RR's or even the obscurity of those RR's,
> but rather the fact that the RR's keep changing in number, kind, and name,
Well, "That RR looked totally different last month" certainly qualifies said RR
as "weird"
