(gah! Sent my reply to discuss-list instead of dev-list... And sent it before I was done typing. Sorry 'bout that)
> Dave Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Beyond 512 bytes, you just can't use UDP -- You can have > >larger records using TCP. > > It's allways nice when a web site takes 5 to 10 seconds to > resolve. :) Yes well. I'm not saying I'd recommend it, but it's possible. > >More importantly though, we're not just talking number of > >IPs per host, there is also the number of hosts (each > >with a unique IP) which would avoid the UDP packet size > >limit, but might be a legitimate use for 1000+ records. > > > I guess I'm not understanding can you give an example? @ A 1.2.3.4 www A 1.2.3.4 mail A 1.2.3.4 @ MX mail webmail CNAME mail host1 A 1.1.1.1 host2 A 1.1.1.2 host3 A 1.1.1.3 (insert more hosts here) host498 A 1.1.2.243 host499 A 1.1.2.244 host500 A 1.1.2.245 My question isn't so much "Is this a good idea" but rather "Why define any limits at all". Or put another way "What is the problem you're trying to solve"? As a customer I get annoyed by needless arbitrairy limits. A common example is voicemail, why can I only keep a message for 21 days? How does it hurt anybody if I want to keep a message longer then that? Why should the telco care if I get 50 messages today, or one message a day for the last 50 days? -- But I digress. It just seems odd to put a sanity limit when there is no harm caused by exceeding the limit.
