> On Mar 27, 2017, at 6:46 PM, Robert Edmonds <edmo...@mycre.ws> wrote: > > Jared Mauch wrote: >> IOn Mar 27, 2017, at 5:59 PM, P Vix <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: >>> >>> I agree to review and comment. Note that I am provisionally negative to the >>> idea itself, and my review may reflect that. Vixie >> >> >> I will note there are other implementations out there as well, such as in >> unbound. serve-expired configuration directive is available there as well. > > Though, the algorithm described in this document is a much different > algorithm than the one in Unbound.
At least the initial implementation is documented (via code) here: https://github.com/jedisct1/unbound/commit/e03d89343e4031be15b2ee78bd432f83cdc79889 > If I understand Unbound's serve-expired algorithm correctly, it always > serves from cache if available (regardless of expiration status), and if > what it served to the client happened to be expired, it triggers a > post-response fetch to update the cache asynchronously. That can end up > serving a lot more stale bread than is strictly necessary if your > Unbound server only serves a few clients. I see the perceived damage here as very low due to the "few clients" you already commented on. - Jared _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
