In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 1:34 PM -0500 2005-07-28, wayne wrote: > >> The truncation isn't *too* bad since it is just the A records for the >> name servers that are getting tossed. That will cause uneven load on >> the various pool name servers, but not on the pool NTP servers >> themselves. > > Any time there's truncation, the resolvers have to retry with > TCP. Ok, I guess I used the term "truncation" when I shouldn't have, it wasn't what I meant and I should know better. Are/were the packets really being truncated, with the TC bit being set and all? Or, were just some of the additional records being not being included? (The latter is what I meant, but not what I said.) This is what I'm currently getting: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) $ dig @202.49.59.6 pool.ntp.org ; <<>> DiG 9.3.1 <<>> @202.49.59.6 pool.ntp.org ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 25001 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 15, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 4 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;pool.ntp.org. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 216.221.85.101 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 217.125.14.244 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 64.109.43.141 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 81.56.228.174 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 82.76.121.165 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 83.245.15.238 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 130.60.75.75 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 146.48.83.182 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 198.144.194.12 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 200.23.51.205 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 202.150.105.150 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 202.173.190.158 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 209.204.159.18 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 213.10.208.72 pool.ntp.org. 120 IN A 213.84.14.16 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: pool.ntp.org. 86400 IN NS aventura.bhms-groep.nl. pool.ntp.org. 86400 IN NS ns1.us.bitnames.com. pool.ntp.org. 86400 IN NS ns1.mailworx.net. pool.ntp.org. 86400 IN NS usenet.net.nz. pool.ntp.org. 86400 IN NS zbasel.fortytwo.ch. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns1.mailworx.net. 7395 IN A 69.1.200.68 usenet.net.nz. 5400 IN A 202.49.59.6 zbasel.fortytwo.ch. 49267 IN A 193.138.215.60 aventura.bhms-groep.nl. 13428 IN A 217.114.97.98 ;; Query time: 228 msec ;; SERVER: 202.49.59.6#53(202.49.59.6) ;; WHEN: Fri Jul 29 11:58:21 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 492 No, you can see that the "received messsage size" is 492 bytes, which is right up at the edge. In the additional section, only 4 of the 5 name servers have A records provided. It is my understanding that the additional records are optional and it is OK for name servers to not put them in when they don't fit. I don't see any mention of the TC bit being set, nor a warning about falling back to TCP. Granted, this is after Ask reduced the number of name servers. I really suspect that we don't need more than 3 name servers, as long as they are both geographically and network topologically diverse, they are well run, and they have a reasonable amount of bandwidth. -wayne _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
