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
