Re: frequent queries to root servers

2016-02-01 Thread Simon Forster
> On 30 Jan 2016, at 21:57, John Levine wrote: > >> If chained CNAMEs work for you, more power to you. But don't be >> surprised if they fail unexpectedly at some point. > > If they don't, you'll have a lot of unhappy users since there's a > whole lot of the Internet they

Re: frequent queries to root servers

2016-02-01 Thread Sam Wilson
In article , Grant Taylor wrote: > I think chained CNAMEs fall into the gray area (no mans land) between > zealots on either side of the RFC interpretation line. > > If chained CNAMEs work for you, more power

Re: frequent queries to root servers

2016-01-30 Thread Grant Taylor
On 01/30/2016 04:44 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: nonsense Okay ... From RFC 1034 - Domain names - concepts and facilities: Of course, by the robustness principle, domain software should not fail when presented with CNAME chains or loops; CNAME chains should be followed and CNAME loops signalled

Re: frequent queries to root servers

2016-01-30 Thread John Levine
>If chained CNAMEs work for you, more power to you. But don't be >surprised if they fail unexpectedly at some point. If they don't, you'll have a lot of unhappy users since there's a whole lot of the Internet they won't be able to see. Try www.apple.com and www.microsoft.com, both of which

Re: frequent queries to root servers

2016-01-30 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 30.01.2016 um 03:45 schrieb Grant Taylor: On 01/26/2016 04:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: violating what? Chaining CNAMEs is a violation according to RFCs. nonsense From RFC 1034 - Domain names - concepts and facilities: Of course, by the robustness principle, domain software should not

Re: frequent queries to root servers

2016-01-29 Thread Grant Taylor
On 01/26/2016 04:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: violating what? Chaining CNAMEs is a violation according to RFCs. It works, but it is unsupported, and you can only blame yourself when it doesn't. -- Grant. . . . unix || die ___ Please visit

Re: frequent queries to root servers

2016-01-29 Thread Dave Warren
On 2016-01-29 18:45, Grant Taylor wrote: On 01/26/2016 04:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: violating what? Chaining CNAMEs is a violation according to RFCs. It works, but it is unsupported, and you can only blame yourself when it doesn't. Maybe I'm misremembering RFC 1034, but a CNAME chain

RE: frequent queries to root servers

2016-01-26 Thread Darcy Kevin (FCA)
Well, when I queried the name livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com, I got a CNAME chain where all of the links in the chain had TTLs of 300 seconds or less: livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com. 43 IN CNAME livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com.akadns.net. livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com.akadns.net.

Re: frequent queries to root servers

2016-01-26 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 27.01.2016 um 00:36 schrieb Darcy Kevin (FCA): Well, when I queried the name livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com, I got a CNAME chain where all of the links in the chain had TTLs of 300 seconds or less: livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com. 43 IN CNAME

Re: frequent queries to root servers

2016-01-26 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 27.01.2016 um 00:46 schrieb Reindl Harald: Am 27.01.2016 um 00:36 schrieb Darcy Kevin (FCA): Well, when I queried the name livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com, I got a CNAME chain where all of the links in the chain had TTLs of 300 seconds or less: livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com. 43 IN

Re: frequent queries to root servers

2016-01-26 Thread Robert Edmonds
HONTVÁRI Levente wrote: > I assumed that the root servers are only queried a few times a week > (corresponding to the number of top level domains). The logs show a > different picture, Queries to the root servers are quite frequent. What am I > missing? > > I have attached a dnstop screen (local