Subject: Re: sethostent(1): is it really that useful with a DNS?
To: Jason R Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chuck Cranor <email@example.com>
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