Re: default dns config change causing major poolpah

* Doug Barton (dougb_at_FreeBSD.org) wrote:

> If there is a consensus based on solid technical reasons (not emotion
> or FUD) to back the root zone slaving change out, I'll be glad to do
> so. I think it would be very useful at this point if those who _like_
> the change would speak up publicly as well.

The abstract at the top of David Malone's paper says:

  Tests, described here, indicate that this technique seems to be
  comparable to the traditional hints mechanism for moderately busy name
  servers and may offer other benefits

Indeed the paper, various messages in dns-operations and so forth would
seem to suggest this is more of use for busier systems with hundreds if
not thousands of users.  These installs are probably something of a
minority, and more to the point are more likely to have had a reasonable
amount of time and research spent poking at configs.

Many more smaller installs are probably going to be thrown up by people
with less interest in such; "Oh, I just want a resolver and some local
DNS names for my 2 user home network/10 user business, I guess the
default config will be fine".

I would suggest that the commented bits be reversed; have a hints file
as the default, more traditional, less controversial option, with slave
zones commented out, with a more explicit note about when and why it
might be helpful, and mentioning any caveats re smaller installs, less
root server support, Paul Vixie kicking puppies, etc.

Even if slave zones are generally better, I would still think the more
conservative approach would be the better one, especially in 6.*.

-- 
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst
    http://hur.st/