nanog mailing list archives
Re: .nyc - here we go...
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:26:29 +1000
In message <51D3B03A.5010209 () cox net>, Larry Sheldon writes:
On 7/2/2013 11:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net> wrote:Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about the right thing.Because obviously, the problems of scaling router memory and scaling DNS servers are the same kind?I would not say "same" but I would say "similar" and "related" when you think about things like how big the cache will be and how much of the traffic the peerages worry about will be pure overhead, and stuff like that.
The number of tld's has very little effect on cache size. Cache size is proportional to the number of unique queries made. There are already enough names to blow out any cache. The number of tld's does have a impact on servers that keep a local copy of the root zone. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: .nyc - here we go..., (continued)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Paul Ferguson (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Rubens Kuhl (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Paul Ferguson (Jul 02)
- Message not available
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Larry Sheldon (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Paul Ferguson (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Andrew Sullivan (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Paul Ferguson (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Kyle Creyts (Jul 03)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Joe Abley (Jul 04)
- Message not available
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Larry Sheldon (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Mark Andrews (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... Paul Ferguson (Jul 02)
- Re: .nyc - here we go... John Levine (Jul 02)