To:
"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Date:
Thu, 27 Apr 2000 08:46:03 +1000
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "26 Apr 2000 20:38:49 GMT." <20000426203849.4242.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: root server load and dynamic updates.
Date: 26 Apr 2000 20:38:49 -0000
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
Message-ID: <20000426203849.4242.qmail@cr.yp.to>
| But I still haven't heard any evidence that this will noticeably affect
| NSI's traffic. Post-hoc-propter-hoc garbage is not evidence. If there's
| a torrent of dynamic updates, then that'll be obvious from a traffic
| sample, so why does NSI say that it hasn't figured out the problem?
I suspect it isn't the traffic (yet anyway) that is the problem, but the
noise caused by the logs of all the unauthorised update attempts. I see
the same thing for the com.au zone file. The additional traffic doesn't
bother me as much, but the noise in the logs makes the logs useless
(how can I tell the difference between a real attempt to pervert the com.au
zone file, and just theses systems sending unwanted ddns to the wrong place)
and the load from actually doing the logging isn't negligible (which I could
avoid by turning it off - but then I lose other potentially useful log info
along with it).
kre