FW: BIND limits and performance questions

Derek J. Balling dredd at megacity.org
Fri Mar 23 23:28:24 UTC 2001

At 11:19 PM +0100 3/23/01, Brad Knowles wrote:
>At 12:18 PM -0800 3/23/01, Derek J. Balling wrote:
>>   If, all of a sudden, some (or many) largish sites (let's say, Hotmail,
>>   Yahoo, MSN, Juno, AOL, etc.) was to start advertising 25 MX records,
>>   pissing all over the 512-byte issue, and say "Hey, its a big record, if
>>   you're not dealing with it properly that's your own business".... how
>>   long would sites continue to run old/broken code when they couldn't
>>   talk to -- or possibly even SEE -- large portions of the net?
>	Been there, done that.  Was personally blamed for the complete
>outage of all e-mail for the entire Internet during AOL's "Black
>Wednesday" 19-hour network failure.
>	You try being personally blamed by Internet e-mail administrators
>from all around the world, many of whom have your private e-mail

Seems to me just a lack of management support then. Too many suits, 
not enough engineers.

If $RANDOM_NET_ENGINEER says "hey, I can't reach $BIG_SITE any 
more!", and its because $RANDOM_NET's DNS resolver is broken, I[1] 
say "Tough, here's the spec, read it, know it, live it."

If $RANDOM_NET is starting to have queuing issues because they can't 
see the MX's for $BIG_SITE that might prove adequate incentive to 
actually find a resolver that follows the spec. :)


[1] That's _I_, definitely not the viewpoint of my own $BIG_SITE 
employer, unfortunately.
| dredd at megacity.org  | "Conan! What is best in life?"          |
|  Derek J. Balling   | "To crush your enemies, see them        |
|                     |    driven before you, and to hear the   |
|                     |    lamentation of their women!"         |

More information about the bind-users mailing list