Cary, > Is this something that you think is an inherent flaw in DNS? Inherent flaw in the DNS: probably not. Inherent flaws in implementations of DNS (including, of course, ISC's BIND) and things in front of the DNS: probably. It is far too easy to do the wrong thing. And if this is true today, just wait -- DNSSEC and IPv6-related RRs create entire new universes of "interesting" configuration options with some _really_ fun interactions. > Will this new class > of servers be less susceptible to congestion? I am a bit skeptical that congestion is the problem. I suspect misconfiguration (lame servers, bad ACLs, broken firewall rules, etc.) is a more likely cause that results in retransmissions. Rgds, -drc
- 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
- Re: To address or NAT... Bill Fink
- Re: To address or NAT... Charles E. Perkins
