Subject: Re: qtype addr scorecard

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:58:14 +0000

> >  (2) the amount of rejected repeated useless query traffic at some root
> >server exceeds 1 gigabit per second.  (both of those things will happen
> >within my lifetime, unless i miss my guess.)
> 
> Out of curiosity, what is the current amount of query traffic on F? And
> what is the percentage of useless query traffic out of the total traffic?

we get about 6Meg of traffic of which about half is garbage.

--
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: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:35:15 -0700

> According to the documentation that I have Windows XP and later
supports
> 4 types of compatibility addresses: ISATAP, 6to4 (RFC 3056), 6over4
> (RFC 2529) and IPv4 compatible ( ::w.x.y.z). The supported
getaddrinfo()
> is only available on XP and later.  I don't expect any of this to be
> available
> on WNT, W2K or any of the Win9x O/S's even with MSR's IPv6 stack or
> the Win2K Technology Preview, though I could be wrong.
> 
> Maybe one of the Microsoft people could comment.

The documentation is available at http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6/

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:34:27 -0400

>The documentation is available at http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6/

Christian, it would have helped if you had answered the question asked. That
URL does not answer the question as you would have know had you read
that page. You would be better off pointing to the Ipv6/IPv4 migration 
document.

Danny

P.S. My email address is NOT [email-masked].  I don't know where you
got that one.

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:27:08 -0500

on 8/19/2002 11:31 AM Paul Vixie wrote:

> Please let me know what clarifications or changes you think are needed.

As stated earlier, I think it needs a lot more fleshing out. It is
currently underspecified, IMO. I gave you an example of this which
degraded into an argument over what BIND 9 may or may not do, but the
underlying concerns still stand. For any situation where multiple types of
answers can be returned (with any level of feasibility), the handling of
those commingled answer types needs to be described.

Some additional discussion on retry techniques, incomplete cache sets and
so forth would also be nice. When a cache needs to fetch missing answers,
what are the requirements or issues with coordinating TTLs among the
answers, or answer types, for example.

It's just too vague for my liking. This is untested waters and it really
should be fleshed out, overspecified even, to offset the worries.

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