Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The DNS model of master and slave servers, with the latter
> > initiating updates based on TTL values,
>
> The slaves don't use the TTL values, don't they?
That section is a bit weird.
Efforts to use very
short (or zero) TTLs to simulate nearly-simultaneous updating may
work up to a point but appear to impose very heavy loads on servers
and distribution mechanisms that were not designed to accommodate
that style of working. Similar observations can be made about
attempts to use dynamic, "server-push", updating rather than the
traditional DNS mechanisms. While those might work better than
ordinary short TTLs and update mechanisms as specified in RFC 1034
and 1035, they imply that a "master" server must know the identities
of (and have real time access to all of) its slaves, defeating many
of the advantages of caching, particularly those associated with
reduction of query traffic across the Internet.
It doesn't mention the venerable and widely-deployed NOTIFY, and seems to
muddle up replication to authoritative servers and cacheing in resolvers.
If it is supposed to be talking about somthing of current relevance, it
should refer explicitly to draft-ietf-dnssd-push or whatever other
developments the author has in mind.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode
Trafalgar: Northerly 5 or 6, becoming cyclonic 5 to 7, perhaps gale 8 later in
southeast. Moderate or rough. Fair. Good.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
