| |||||||||||||
SlashdotSlashdotPosted Dec 9, 2012 14:24 UTC (Sun) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641)In reply to: Slashdot by paulj Parent article: Stallman: Ubuntu Spyware: What to Do?
The average website has 14 domains linked from the first website people visit: http://httparchive.org/trends.php
You really want every device with a browser to talk to the TLD servers for each of these domains ? (yes many are the same domain: so let's say 7 per website you visit).
That's doesn't add up.
(Log in to post comments)
Slashdot Posted Dec 9, 2012 18:12 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
The roots and TLDs are *more* than capable of handling requests from every device on the internet, without caching. There is a simple proof for this: They *did so* - users will regularly make typos in their browsers, queries for these non-existent domains will go out to the "." and (if the TLD is valid) to the TLDs.
Perhaps this decreased a little since browsers started diverting things typed into the address bar to search engines.
However, the fact remains that the roots and TLDs *already* get hit by queries from *every* device with an interactive user, as well as any which happen to query for some misconfigured or no longer valid hostname. The . and TLDs are *already* setup to handle this kind of load, cause they already get it.
What the intermediate caches do is:
a) Not provide effective caching (distribution of queries is very long tailed) - see e.g. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=581877 (and I think there's a more recent ISOC article that found the same thing)
b) Potentially add latency - it may take longer for your computer to get its answer.
c) Provide a huge, juicy target for attackers - a DNS poisoning attack is so much more efficient if you poison a widely shared cache.
|
|||||||||||||