Subject: Re: sethostent(1): is it really that useful with a DNS?
To: Jason R Thorpe <>
From: Chuck Cranor <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 06/18/2001 15:16:23
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 09:56:51AM -0700, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
>  > i contend that DNS transactions are relatively small and most 
>  > LANs between resolver clients and their local DNS servers are 
>  > uncongested.
> Wow, an uncongested corporate LAN -- that's quite an interesting
> idea :-)
really?  i guess it depends on where you work.  around here we've
got lots of cisco 5500 and 6500 switches throughout the building.  
the 6500 i use the most hardly ever shows even a 1% load on its LEDs.   

> Seriously, though, I understand the desire to be able to use UDP
> for things like this.

yeah, basically i want my NetBSD systems to always use UDP for DNS.
what do you think should be done about sethostent(1) then?

On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 03:54:35PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 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.

i'm more worried about the common cases.   for "interesting situations"
you can always add a "use TCP for DNS" switch to programs or to