At 10:49 PM 11/30/99 -0500, Keith Moore wrote: >note also that DNS is often slow, and seems less reliable than IP. >by increasing the reliance on DNS you increase the probability of failure. Data point: out of 40,000 random DNS requests logged on my work station over the last year, 20% underwent at least one retransmission, resulting in service times larger than 2 seconds. The average packet loss rate on the regular IP service only explain about half of these retransmissions, which makes me suspect that a lot of additional losses are caused by congested DNS servers. Increasing our reliance on the DNS is definitely not a good idea. -- Christian Huitema
- To address or NAT to address? Graham Klyne
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Matt Crawford
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Keith Moore
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Christian Huitema
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Cary FitzGerald
- Re: To address or NAT to address? David R. Conrad
- Re: To address or NAT to addr... Keith Moore
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Christian Huitema
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: To address or NAT to address? David R. Conrad
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: To address or NAT to addr... Yakov Rekhter
- Re: To address or NAT to ... Charles E. Perkins
- Re: To address or NAT... Christian Huitema