nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
From: Bruce Campbell <bc-nanog () vicious dropbear id au>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:14:57 +0200 (CEST)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Paul Wouters wrote:
Unfortunately, SiteFinder did not have such a destructive effect as we had all wanted it to have. Statistics in our network showed no significant increase in dns traffic. Especially if you compare it against things like SoBig: http://www.xtdnet.nl/paul/spam/graphs/versign.png
In terms of DNS traffic leaving your network, it was the same amount of traffic. Query packets got sent to the gtld servers, and Answer packets came back. Since the wildcard answer was an 'A' (this is it bub), and not 'NS' (go look over there willya?), the SiteFinder IP address was not sent any DNS traffic, thus there was no appreciable increase in DNS traffic. --==-- Bruce. NXDOMAIN != Connection Refused
Current thread:
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN, (continued)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Andre Oppermann (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Patrick W Gilmore (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Patrick W Gilmore (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN bmanning (Aug 16)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Dan Hollis (Aug 16)