[26637] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Selection of Appropriate Local SMTP Relay
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Olivier Gerschel)
Mon Jan 10 22:50:43 2000
Reply-To: <Olivier.Gerschel@ogerschel.fr>
From: "Olivier Gerschel" <Olivier.Gerschel@ogerschel.fr>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 04:46:25 +0100
Message-ID: <NNELIKOFEBPDCIBDCMHMCECMEOAA.Olivier.Gerschel@ogerschel.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <387A4FEB.9F48B82F@onecall.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Funny, I've been following this thread for a while, and nobody mentioned --
yet -- 2052 and SRV RRs ... if memory serves, it's written in this RFC that
the purpose of SRV was to get rid of / improve some of WKS RRs problems.
Anyhow, to put some op content here, Microsoft makes heavy use of SRV RRs in
Win2K, hence their customers, and what I mean here is significantly
increased load on DNS servers because of lots of port remaping setup between
peer servers and services -- ldap, kerb, whatever -- so far so good for the
traffic (core / professional) transit -- end-to-end --, but I'm afraid there
will be a lot of configurations pounding on innocent DNS (ISP/Telco) servers
to either try to update or get updates ... hence the enhanced traffic ... I
have few metrics but I guess there will be plenty in less than a quarter.
Anybody logged yet significant amounts of _default_first_site_name_kerbereos
or _default_first_site_name_ldap failed queries / updates to their
nameservers ?
- Olivier.
Richard Irving wrote :
>> WKS RRs weren't doing that - the boundary between host names and service
>> names was still in place; so WKS RRs were simply redundant.
>
> Really, the point is, not enough domains implemented
> -non-standard- WKS...
>
> If you didn't need to -remap- the port, why bother ?
>
> And, in case you can answer -that- question:
>
> Kerberos locks on WKS didn't actually -work- till -years-
> later.
>
> :}
>
>>
>> --vadim
