-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- R$ wrote:
I have serious concerns about whether the DNS stuff will really scale. It's gonna blow out DNS server memory use, and the bigger packets means a *lot* more TCP (vs UDP) activity.
Perry wrote:
I'm not that worried. HESIOD has already shown that you can afford to store really mongo databases in the DNS, and with caching I suspect the TCP activity isn't going to be over very wide distances for the most part.
Perry's right. With a fairly current BIND (named), MIT stores on the order of 100-200 bytes of data per Athena user for ~25000 users. MIT's been doing this for years; for the longest time, they were using ~1 MIPS Vaxstation II's with ~9MB of memory as DNS servers. 1024 bit RSA public keys are ~128 bytes, as are digital signatures. If we allow framing and similar stuff to expand the size of the data to 150 bytes per key/signature, and if each user had a signed key in the DNS, this would roughly triple the amount of data in the DNS. This Is Not A Problem. I haven't looked at the CPU load needed to compute the signatures, but that takes place off-line, not on-line. - Bill -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBMBOQTbT+rHlVUGpxAQEwrgP9HRftK+uw1zDQuLEy8uCe58QHwVXNXJTy 8fxoK5+k7d56/k55l6yVjTrBUnSCRZibukQLididjnkDr3P7Qv3cdafkkSxxTY/5 PMeDL3lYZ2GhjNBkVvRt554b1iL/Gaq/ckbwTpVvcMeUeN0HqWvYMEXnqTIzye8u 1i9kqo6ENiw= =fqe9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----