Re: Something better than DNS?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 11:42:17AM -0500,
 Emin Gun Sirer <egs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote 
 a message of 36 lines which said:

> Right now, we'd like to have a domain delegated to a large number
> (say 100+) of nameservers.

See Edward Lewis' respond (basically, global anycast + local anycast
and you have as many servers as you wish).

> The registrars we have gone through impose a limit on the number of
> nameservers they are willing to accept.

The limit typically comes from the registry (eight nameservers in
".fr").

> (And no, not all nameservers need to be returned in response to
> every query. A random sampling would be fine).

Since they are all part of the same RRset, it is not legal to return
only a part of them. A RRset must be returned completely (or the TC
bit set).

BTW, did you test if typical resolvers (say, BIND) can handle as many
nameservers? I doubt it, they probably have a fixed array to store the
nameservers they try.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]