This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/dns-wg@ripe.net/
[dns-wg] Elimination of 2nd level ccTLD domain names
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Elimination of 2nd level ccTLD domain names
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Elimination of 2nd level ccTLD domain names
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brad Knowles
brad at stop.mail-abuse.org
Mon Oct 25 16:29:39 CEST 2004
At 4:23 PM +0300 2004-10-25, Yiorgos Adamopoulos wrote: > Actually you do not have to run a database instance > on every node where you want to run a DNS server. Why not have the > Database system produce the zone files for the nameserver of your taste > (be it NSD, tinydns, BIND, etc) and then rsync to the actual servers? Well, for NSD, using large zones will cause it to eat memory exponentially. It pre-calculates all possible questions and all possible answers before it loads the zone(s), and then creates a jump table. I remember at RIPE 44 that we got a report from the folks up at SUNET, who had tried using NSD to serve the ccTLDs they handle, and even though it was a monster machine with many gigabytes of memory, that still wasn't enough. BIND will probably be better in this respect, but I doubt it's going to be manageable, either. If you're bound and determined to go with a completely flat namespace for what will be the largest TLD in the world (Europe already has more citizens than the US, more citizens online than the US, and a faster growth rate than the US), then I think you have no option but to go with a database back-end for operations as well as maintenance. Sure, in a few years the Chinese or Indians may take over the #1 position (since both countries have unbelievable growth rates and over one billion population each), but that's still several years away and they can always look at whatever solution Europe has pioneered to handle these extremely large ultra-flat zones. Of course, your operational database could be trimmed to just the absolutely necessary information and loaded non-real time from the maintenance database which does include all the desired information, but that's still going to be a big database. I doubt that you're going to have any practical option but to use ANS from Nominum. NSD certainly isn't going to cut it, PowerDNS certainly won't cut it, I don't think that BIND will have the necessary high-reliability interfaces, and I don't know of any other large-scale database back-end nameservers (dlz-bind is a nice toy, but certainly won't be able to scale to this kind of level). That is, unless you want to hand everything over to someone else to operate as a service for you -- like UltraDNS. Oh, wait -- they bought the business from Nominum, who was using ANS for their customers, and UltraDNS almost certainly still using ANS today.... -- Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Elimination of 2nd level ccTLD domain names
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Elimination of 2nd level ccTLD domain names
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]