Subject: RE: RR distribution by type?

From: "Larson, Matt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:05:49 -0400

> The distribution might vary widely by depth, etc., of the zone.

Agreed.  But it's the leaves I'm interested in, since the TLD zones are
predictably dull: just NS and A records.

> Not to be facetious, I'd be curious what the distribution is in .com
> (percentages would be good enough).  This would impact a lot 
> of areas - some places are sensitive to how many zones a server serves 
> (ie the ratio of NS to glue A's).

The com, net and org zones are available for public download.  More info is
at http://www.verisign-grs.com/dns/dnspro.html.

I was going to give you a quick percentage of A and NS records (to total
records) in the com zone, but I don't have a recent copy lying around on my
local machine and it's time-consuming to grab and uncompress it (working on
it now).  If you can tell me more specifically what you're looking for, I'll
run some stats for you on com, net and org.

Matt
--
Matt Larson <[email-masked]>
VeriSign Global Registry Services / www.verisign-grs.com

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:20:48 -0400

>run some stats for you on com, net and org.

Just RR's by type: e.g., NS = 67%, A = 32%, others =, well, maybe
parts-per-million would be appropriate.  Come to think of it, .com would be
just NS, A, and an SOA.

I'd be curious to know what the distribution would be for a signed .com. ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: [email-masked]

Dilbert is an optimist.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:43:36 -0700

> predictably dull: just NS and A records.

your prediction is not supported by reality.  i know a lot of cctlds that
hold the full data in zone files many megabytes long.

randy

---

From: Mans Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:15:45 +0200

> hold the full data in zone files many megabytes long.

Which is true of for instance .SE and .DE. However, SE is moving towards
the "predictably dull" and I've spoken to people who would want the same
for .DE. While not technically hard (except as in demanding more cycles
and more RAM) something like DNSSEC is somewhat hindered by the existence
of non delegation-related data in a {cc,g}TLD. The responsability clashes
and resulting lawyer-food might just be overwhelming.

Randy is right in pointing out that TLDen with non-delegation data
exist. This is not the case for the gTLD's however, and, as I state above,
I'm not certain whether it is desirable for any other TLD either, from
an administrative-legalese standpoint that is..

-- 
Måns Nilsson		Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204		KTHNOC
			MN1334-RIPE

Half a mind is a terrible thing to waste!

---

From: Mats Dufberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:38:54 +0200 (CEST)

> predictably dull: just NS and A records.

On the other hand, I find the way COM/ORG/NET handle A records strange.

The delegation of SATSAFE.COM has, for some reason, been removed, but the
former glue record of ns.satsafe.com is now an authoratative record of the
COM zone.

KRAM.NET is delegated to ns1.kram.net and ns2.kram.net (with glue
records). Earlier it was delegated to www.kram.net and mail.kram.net. The
NET zone continues to announce www.kram.net and mail.kram.net as A
records.

How should they be considered?

Mats

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mats Dufberg                                     +46-8-545 857 06
[email-masked]                           fax: +46-8-545 857 29