Darren Reed said:
|so why not ? Are DNS transactions light weight enough to make requiring
|TCP an overkill ? What if the TCP connection were kept open during the
|life of the namesrver rather than on a per-request basis ?
TCP connections are a pain for the DNS. IBM's stupid netstat uses one
such... I just can't imagine all the datagrams and time wasted in TCP
handshaking particularly true on slow lines !
Keeping TCP sockets open ? I can't imagine to have 200 open just for
the pleasure.
Keep it on UDP !
--
Christophe Wolfhugel | Email: Christophe .
Wolfhugel @
grasp .
insa-lyon .
fr
References:
-
DNS over TCP
From: avalon @
coombs .
anu .
edu .
au (Darren Reed)
|
|
