Hi Antoin, On Jul 2, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Antoin Verschuren <[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Op 01-07-13 23:43, Warren Kumari schreef: >> Hi there, >> >> We would like to draw your attention to a new draft. > > I like this draft and concept, but how new is it? > It's good to be documented though. Not to speak for Warren, but this is why I was willing to work on a draft. > I feel like when a recursive resolver has implemented HAMMER, and > HAMMER_TIME is set to zero, we have an existing sticky resolver. > This is the idea, yes. > One thing that fails though for this analogy to be complete, is how > iterative the "cache fill" query will be. > If a record from a zone is about to expire, but it still has a valid > NS set for that zone in it's cache, will it ignore or use that NS set > to issue the iterative query? > If it does use it, thereby being a full sticky resolver, it will > create less DNS traffic for static delegated zones, as it does not hit > the parent again. > If it doesn't, and ignores the NS set for the zone in it's cache, and > re-queries the parent, it will hit the parent harder than when it did > not implement HAMMER, and probably create more DNS traffic than > without HAMMER. > > I feel this needs to be clarified in the draft. This is the other reason for a draft :) I know this has been in the field in various forms, but AFAIK those questions haven't really been asked across teams of implementors or groups of operators. If they have, I'm happy to reduce my own ignorance and others' by documenting accordingly. Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
