Arguments for/against use of forwarders{}?

[Brad Knowles]

At 12:13 PM +0100 5/20/01, Jim Reid wrote:

>  If you forward, you depend on whatever you forward to be always
>  available to answer queries. If the target(s) of those forwarded
>  queries die or misbehave or get renumbered or have their configuration
>  changed, you lose. Lookups for non-local names will probably then time
>  out and fail. If you don't forward, you're only dependant on your
>  local name server which is under your own control. So the questions
>  to ask yourself are "Can I trust my ISP?" and "Am I as competent at
>  running a name server as my ISP?".

	Excellent description.  Mind if I use this?


	Also, don't forget about what happens when/if you should change 
ISPs -- if you don't change your forwarding, you really lose.

	And, as you scale up, if the machine you're forwarding to can 
only handle a few hundred queries per second, you may create 
unnecessary congestion on that machine as you have more and more 
forwarding clients that are pointing more and more unknown queries to 
that machine, instead of scaling linearly as you add more nameservers 
internally.

	Can anyone think of any other reasons?

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>

/*        efdtt.c  Author:  Charles M. Hannum <root at ihack.net>          */
/*       Represented as 1045 digit prime number by Phil Carmody         */
/*     Prime as DNS cname chain by Roy Arends and Walter Belgers        */
/*                                                                      */
/*     Usage is:  cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob        */
/*   where title-key = "153 2 8 105 225" or other similar 5-byte key    */

dig decss.friet.org|perl -ne'if(/^x/){s/[x.]//g;print pack(H124,$_)}'