On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 18:55, Joe Baptista wrote: > On 18 May 2004, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > If you'd like to unify something, perhaps it could be DNS client behaviour > > and network-owner recursive caching forwarder design. And while you're at > > it, please outlaw those fiendish DNS-based load balancers. f-root should > > still be a 486DX2-66 like it was in ~1995, rather than fifty 1GHz pentiums, > > and the 500X load 10 years later is due to client stupidity, not population > > growth or backbone speed increases. > > Not completely due to client stupidity, > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/ > > it is however a factor :) If you would have even read the CAIDA article you would know why AS112 has been built and that misconfigured _clients_ perform the queries. Also if clients would be using local ISP supplied DNS caches, that would be correctly configured there would be a lot less of a problem. Adding your .god/satan and whatever tld you are trying to advertise won't help at all with the fact that clients are trying to get the RFC1918 and other reverses from the root servers which simply do not exist. That the register even took the article just tells something about their quality, having over 70% advertisement in a 'article'... FYI read up on: http://www.as112.net http://www.chagreslabs.net/jmbrown/research/drafts/draft-brown-pvtipdns-01.html And the current CAIDA work at: http://www.caida.org/projects/dns-analysis/ Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part