Chuck Cranor <chuck@research.att.com> writes:
> > Actually, you're almost always better off with TCP these days on
> > virtually any protocol. The "overhead" of TCP turns out to be more
> > than offset by getting real congestion control. An extremely unloaded
> > LAN or something where you have very small transactions are the only
> > (possible) exceptions.
> 
> yes, that's why i said: 'in the typical config (local DNS "close" to 
> 			resolver client on network)'
> 
> i contend that DNS transactions are relatively small and most 
> LANs between resolver clients and their local DNS servers are 
> uncongested.

Dunno about either. I've had interesting situations trying to mass
reverse map lots of addresses where TCP would have been a serious win,
and most LANs seem to move towards congestion with time.

Perry
--
Perry E. Metzger		perry@wasabisystems.com
--
Quality NetBSD CDs, Support & Service. http://www.wasabisystems.com/