Subject: Re: [Design] Re: the KEY debate

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:01:38 -0500

> Well-know fact that excess RRs bound to an owner will cause overflow of
> UDP queries for qtype ALL. Adding "just one more" RR to a set means that
> all first-pass queries for an overloaded owner name fail.

So what?   Which applications, other than dig, look up qtype ALL?   Are 
these applications doing the right thing?   I.e., is it the idea of putting 
more records in the DNS that is broken, or is it the applications that use 
qtype ALL when they probably don't need all the data?

> Adding a bunch of 4k RRs to an owner can exceed TCP capacity. NOT useful.

This is a good argument for srv-style records, but it's not a good argument 
for not putting keys in the namespace.   I don't think there should *be* a 
dozen keys hanging off a single name - as you say, ETOOMUCHINFO.

> Cache overflow is already common in large ISPs.

Can you add a little more to this statement?   By itself, it could mean 
"most ISPs don't make their caches big enough," or "lots of trash falls out 
of the cache, improving performance," or "we have a real problem."   You 
seem to be saying that it's the third option, but you haven't said anything 
to support that interpretation.

Furthermore, the biggest DNS problem I'm aware of right now is misdirected 
queries.   If these are what is thrashing the typical ISP's cache, that's 
completely orthogonal to the question of what or how much data should go in 
the DNS.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:43:36 -0500

[namedroppers re-added]

on 8/7/2002 4:27 PM Rob Austein wrote:
> [namedroppers was not explictly cced on Ted's message, I'll assume
> that was intentional.]
> 
> At Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:01:38 -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 
>>Which applications, other than dig, look up qtype ALL?  Are these
>>applications doing the right thing?  I.e., is it the idea of putting
>>more records in the DNS that is broken, or is it the applications
>>that use qtype ALL when they probably don't need all the data?

sendmail does it so they can find any MX, A and/or CNAME RRs that exist,
using a single query (using multiple queries would be a different kind of
hostile). qmail does it to be compatible (djb posted a long message on
this, check the archives).

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 00:42:54 +0200

"Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]> writes:

> hostile). 

Not any more.  This was fixed in Sendmail 8.12.0.

> qmail does it to be compatible (djb posted a long message on this,
> check the archives).

That discussion probably stopped people from doing such silly things.