On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 09:58:32AM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > Olafur Gudmundsson <mailto:o...@ogud.com> > > Friday, January 16, 2015 7:51 AM > > ... > > One of the oldest ideas on that was from Andreas Gustafsson was to wrap > > XFR transmission inside compressed transmission. > > late BIND4 and early BIND8 had something called ZXFR that did this. it > never worked out of the box, but frederico neves in brazil fixed it and > had it running in production for his inter-site synchronization some > time in the mid/late 1990's. it's worth asking him if it was worthwhile
This was late 1990's, in a time that we didn't have registry backend journals, way before bind started providing ixfr-from-differences on 9.3, OSs still struggled with the long fat pipe problem and we happen to have some secondaries on the 350ms vicinity... it was definitely worthwhile. But today I guess in the same scenario a vpn based transport solution would be easier. > (noting, this was before incompressible DNSSEC signatures were added.) True only for individual records. I guess the authors are aiming at small zones and Olafur had this in mind when doing this comment. For a even a few thousand records signed zone I see quite good compression only taking in account RRSIGs RDATA. Taking synchronization efficiency in perspective, reducing the amount of redundant information, explicitly suppressing it, is the best approach. MIXFR ideas are worth pursuing. Fred _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
