Round robin on CNAME

[Nate Campi]

On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:59:47AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
> >>>>> "Nate" == Nate Campi <nate at campin.net> writes:
> 
>     Nate> It's a small difference, but we're dealing with really busy
>     Nate> domain names here, and small differences matter. When a
>     Nate> CNAME is encountered, the query has to be rewritten with the
>     Nate> new name. This costs in computing resources, adding
>     Nate> latency. Following NS records without rewriting the query
>     Nate> would be better.
> 
> Frankly, this does not appear to be well thought out. Have you
> actually done an analysis to support or justify this argument? It
> would be interesting to see some numbers which compares both
> approaches. 

There's no measurement needed. If I hand out a name for a nameserver
inside the lycos.com zone, remote resolvers head right for those IPs.

This is far more efficient not only because there's no query rewriting
(small amount of latency, we all agree), but also no resolution of the
right side of the NS records. The IPs are provided as glue. There could
be all kinds of latency resolving those, none of which is needed for an
in-bailiwick delegation.

Do you still think it needs to be measured after explained this way? Do
you not agree this is better?
-- 
Nate

During the million-dollar BIND 9 rewrite, Paul Vixie characterized the
original BIND code as 'sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch
of U C Berkeley grad students.' 
       -- D.J. Bernstein   http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html