Subject: Re: sethostent(1): is it really that useful with a DNS?
To: Chuck Cranor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
Date: 06/17/2001 15:54:35
Chuck Cranor <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Actually, you're almost always better off with TCP these days on
> > virtually any protocol. The "overhead" of TCP turns out to be more
> > than offset by getting real congestion control. An extremely unloaded
> > LAN or something where you have very small transactions are the only
> > (possible) exceptions.
> yes, that's why i said: 'in the typical config (local DNS "close" to
> resolver client on network)'
> i contend that DNS transactions are relatively small and most
> LANs between resolver clients and their local DNS servers are
Dunno about either. I've had interesting situations trying to mass
reverse map lots of addresses where TCP would have been a serious win,
and most LANs seem to move towards congestion with time.
Perry E. Metzger email@example.com
Quality NetBSD CDs, Support & Service. http://www.wasabisystems.com/