<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=gb2312" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16434">
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: 宋体;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Verdana;
}
@font-face {
font-family: @宋体;
}
@page Section1 {size: 595.3pt 841.9pt; margin: 72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; layout-grid: 15.6pt; }
P.MsoNormal {
TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-style-type: personal-compose
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
UNKNOWN {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
BLOCKQUOTE {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 2em
}
OL {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
UL {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2>Yes, I fake the root and use the same set of
queries.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080>However, the results are totally
different when TA (top level auth.) uses NSD and SA (secend level
auth.) uses NSD.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080>In my mind, the results should be similar in these
two cases.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080>So, why?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080><IMG src="cid:__0@Foxmail.net"></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#c0c0c0 size=2>2011-09-16 </FONT></DIV><FONT color=#000080
size=2>
<HR style="WIDTH: 100px" align=left color=#b5c4df SIZE=1>
</FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=#c0c0c0 size=2><SPAN>yzw_iplab</SPAN> </FONT></DIV>
<HR color=#b5c4df SIZE=1>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>发件人：</STRONG> Phil Regnauld </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>发送时间：</STRONG> 2011-09-16 15:35:35 </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>收件人：</STRONG> Stephane Bortzmeyer </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>抄送：</STRONG> ?????????; dns-operations </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>主题：</STRONG> Re: DNS software test! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV>Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer) writes:</DIV>
<DIV>> >
Testing one tool at a time, on a known dataset would be the</DIV>
<DIV>> >
way to go for recursion (unbound, bind) and authoritative</DIV>
<DIV>> > (bind, nsd).</DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> For an authoritative name server, I fully agree with you. However, for</DIV>
<DIV>> a recursive, it is more complicated: the performances of an isolated</DIV>
<DIV>> recursive name server are not interesting, unless you access</DIV>
<DIV>> already-cached data.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Exactly.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>> I'm not sure we have a nice, sound and realistic methodology to test</DIV>
<DIV>> recursive name servers.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Fake root + ensure that you're loading the same data set on a number of </DIV>
<DIV>virtual upstream auth servers, with a large number of zones. May not</DIV>
<DIV>look very real, but at least you're testing against the same data set</DIV>
<DIV>every time.</DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>