Re: [dnsext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-02

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

At 12:10 +0900 6/21/11, Masataka Ohta wrote:

>    3) to help the poor operators, yet another dial to tweak IXFR
>       behavior MUST be added

Ohta-san,

Times have changed since the days of RFC 1995, the requirements have 
changed.  Although the network has seen an increase in capacity (bits 
per second) the distance between endpoints has actually increased (we 
send zones further and further from home).

In addition the size of zones has grown greatly and the number of 
large zones has grown greatly.  I know that 15 years ago, even COM 
was under a million records.  Now a million records is an average 
sized TLD.

And thanks to dynamic update (which was published after RFC 1995), 
the role of IXFR has grown to surpass AXFR as the standard transfer 
mechanism.

It makes sense for a server, when told there is a new version, to do 
what it can to efficiently seek a new version.  It makes sense that a 
server would, when it knows that there is a new version to be had, 
contact all the places where it can get just the update before 
locking on to an AXFR.

 From a recovery perspective, what if the master server loses it's 
increment memory and cannot do AXFR?  Each slave might be called on 
to do AXFRs when it would be more efficient for one slave to do the 
AXFR and then answer IXFR requests until the system stabilizes.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at [phone]

I'm overly entertained.