Subject: does anybody use additional/authority records on RD/RA replies

From: bert hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 13:15:40 +0100

In a refreshing change, here is a question about DNS.

I'm wondering if anybody knows of any client library actually using
additional/authority records in answers to recursion desired/recursion
available questions, with the exception of the SOA negative presence
indication.

Thanks.

Regards,

bert hubert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com      Open source, database driven DNS Software 
http://lartc.org           Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO
http://netherlabs.nl                         Consulting

--
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: Alexis Yushin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:25:33 +0100 (CET)

Once D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>I'm not just saying that ad-hoc per-program DNS caches are bad design
>today. I'm also saying that they were bad design twenty years ago.
>
>The traffic argument is, and has always been, silly: a machine-wide
>cache saves more traffic. The memory argument is, and has always been,
>silly: a machine-wide cache uses less memory. The CPU-time argument is
>not silly, but if you measure carefully then you'll see that it's wrong.

I think the real arguement here is that resolving process, quite often
lengthy, potentionaly blocking operation, can dramatically impact the
performance of the application unless optimized. Having dns cache built
in ensures that the application does not rely on external software and
will function reasonably even when no machine-wide dns cache software
is in use, which is quite often the case.

Now if machine-level dns caching was a standard feature of the resolver
library or the operating system, I'm sure nobody would be implementing
custom built in program-level dns caches. Until them I'm afraid it does
make sense to avoid complicating dependancies.

Alexis