|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Selection of Appropriate Local SMTP Relay
Funny, I've been following this thread for a while, and nobody mentioned -- yet -- 2052 and SRV RRs ... if memory serves, it's written in this RFC that the purpose of SRV was to get rid of / improve some of WKS RRs problems. Anyhow, to put some op content here, Microsoft makes heavy use of SRV RRs in Win2K, hence their customers, and what I mean here is significantly increased load on DNS servers because of lots of port remaping setup between peer servers and services -- ldap, kerb, whatever -- so far so good for the traffic (core / professional) transit -- end-to-end --, but I'm afraid there will be a lot of configurations pounding on innocent DNS (ISP/Telco) servers to either try to update or get updates ... hence the enhanced traffic ... I have few metrics but I guess there will be plenty in less than a quarter. Anybody logged yet significant amounts of _default_first_site_name_kerbereos or _default_first_site_name_ldap failed queries / updates to their nameservers ? - Olivier. Richard Irving wrote : >> WKS RRs weren't doing that - the boundary between host names and service >> names was still in place; so WKS RRs were simply redundant. > > Really, the point is, not enough domains implemented > -non-standard- WKS... > > If you didn't need to -remap- the port, why bother ? > > And, in case you can answer -that- question: > > Kerberos locks on WKS didn't actually -work- till -years- > later. > > :} > >> >> --vadim
|