Re: root server load and dynamic updates.

["Cricket Liu" <cricket@acmebw.com>]

> Dynamic Updates on a 'orrible scale.  It appears to be that if a windows
> 2000 machine cannot find its forward and reverse name to resolve
> correctly, it will send a dynamic update for the name to the nearest found
> parent.
>
> Logically, this should *not* be the root nameservers.  Well, logically,
> yes.  If the logical (listed) parents are not found, then I think it walks
> back down the chain, and (possibly) to the roots.

Yup.  This is basically standard behavior for dynamic
update routines, whether Microsoft's or the ISC's:  find
the enclosing zone, locate its name servers and send
the dynamic update.

> As our[1] nameservers are authoritative for a few reverses[2], we tend to
> see an awful lot of these dynamic updates, which show up as 'Unauthorised
> update' etc etc.
>
> Its the equivilant of a new-born baby waking up during its first night,
> and immediately bawling down the phone to the deed poll office to change
> their name.  Annoying, but it does save the parents the tramua of naming
> the babe.

I've also heard rumors that these particular dynamic
updates are coming in over TCP, which would help
explain why they're so hard on name servers.  Can
anyone verify that?

cricket