David,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David G. Andersen) [Thu 12 Aug 2004, 02:55 CEST]:
Global impact is greatest when the resulting load changes are
concentrated in one place. The most clear example of that is changes
that impact the root servers. When a 1% increase in total traffic
is instead
I was reminded about rfc1537.
Been a long time since I read that, so a good reminder. But it only
deals with SOA records. And it's 11 years old (closer to 12).
The topic at hand was NS records. Any other guidance?
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 01:35:36PM +0200, Niels Bakker scribed:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David G. Andersen) [Thu 12 Aug 2004, 02:55 CEST]:
Global impact is greatest when the resulting load changes are
concentrated in one place. The most clear example of that is changes
that impact the root
At root and gTLD servers I assume DNS traffic occupies significantly
more than 3% of all traffic there. Still, a 1% increase remains 1%.
Sure, but the ratio still plays out. ...
i must have misspoken. when i asked what if 20,000 sites decreased their
cache utilization by 1% due to a
i must have misspoken. when i asked what if 20,000 sites decreased their
cache utilization by 1% due to a general lowering of TTL's inspired by
MIT's paper i was wondering if anyone thought that the result would be a
straight across-the-board increase in traffic at the root servers. there
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 are a
what i meant by act globally, think locally in connection with That
MIT Paper is that the caching effects seen at mit are at best
representative of that part of mit's campus for that week, and that
even a variance of 1% in caching effectiveness at MIT that's due to
generally high or low TTL's
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:49:18PM +, Paul Vixie scribed:
what i meant by act globally, think locally in connection with That
MIT Paper is that the caching effects seen at mit are at best
representative of that part of mit's campus for that week, and that
Totally agreed. The paper
there are many sites and isps like mit and kaist. there are few
root servers. while i care about the root servers, i presume that
they are run by competent folk and certainly they are measured to
death (which is rather boring from the pov of most of us). i care
about isp and user site
Paul Vixie wrote:
(what if a general decline in TTL's resulted from publication of That
MIT Paper?)
It's an academic paper. The best antedote would be to publish a nicely
researched reply paper.
Meanwhile, I'm probably one of those guilty of too large a reduction of
TTLs. I remember
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
Regarding both Paul's message below and Simon Walter's earlier message on
this topic...
Simon Walters scribed:
I'm slightly concerned that the authors think web traffic is the big
source of DNS, they may well be right (especially given one of the
authors is talking about his own network),
i wrote:
wrt the mit paper on why small ttl's are harmless, i recommend that
y'all actually read it, the whole thing, plus some of the references,
rather than assuming that the abstract is well supported by the body.
http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/papers/dns-imw2001.html
here's what i've learned
On 23.07 22:30, Simon Waters wrote:
The abstract doesn't mention that the TTL on NS records is found to be
important for scalability of the DNS.
Sic!
And it is the *child* TTL that counts for most implementations.
i'd said:
wrt the mit paper on why small ttl's are harmless, i recommend that
y'all actually read it, the whole thing, plus some of the references,
rather than assuming that the abstract is well supported by the body.
someone asked me:
Would you happen to have the URL for the MIT paper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:01:54 +
| From: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: that MIT paper again (Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in
.com/.net )
|
|wrt the mit paper on why small ttl's are harmless, i recommend that
|y'all actually read
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:30:46 BST, Simon Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think relying on accurate DNS information to distinguish spammers from
genuine senders is at best shakey currently, the only people I can think
would suffer with making it easier and quicker to create new domains
would
17 matches
Mail list logo
