[164277] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: .nyc - here we go...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Wed Jul 3 01:27:15 2013
To: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:01:46 -0500."
<51D3B03A.5010209@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:26:29 +1000
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
