Round robin on CNAME

Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Sun Apr 7 18:13:19 UTC 2002


>>>>> "Nate" == Nate Campi <nate at campin.net> writes:

    >>  I didn't. Clearly your definition of "small" is not the same
    >> as mine.  You said these "small differences matter". I gave a
    >> bunch of reasons why your reasoning was suspect (let's be
    >> charitable) and any small difference would be so tiny it would
    >> probably be invisible, assuming it could even be measured
    >> reliably. If that's true then your small difference simply does
    >> not matter.

    Nate> My original message drew to much attention to query
    Nate> rewriting as why I want delegation. I explained in the same
    Nate> message how I want to use in-bailiwich delegation 

If you say so. IIRC your original message spoke about rewriting
queries and chasing down delegations.

    Nate> - and that's where the big difference is.

Nope. There *is* a difference. Whether it's big or not depends on your
perspective: to a bacterium, plankton is "big". But even with your
clarified explanation that difference is unlikely to be measurable
once the impact of caching is taken into consideration.

Even if there was a discernable speed-up from your scenario, let's not
forget the maintenance problems that it leads to. How many times have
we seen people on this list asking why the DNS continues to give the
old address of their web server because they forgot to update glue in
the parent zone? This is or should be a FAQ. And the logical inference
from your argument is that every TLD should contain the A records for
every www.delegation.TLD. [Hey, let's put all these names in the root
zone so that'll make the lookups even faster....] Didn't a single,
centralised hosts file prove unworkable back in the days of ARPAnet?


More information about the bind-users mailing list