Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification

["Hector Santos" <winserver.support@winserver.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yakov Shafranovich" <research@solidmatrix.com>
To: "Hector Santos" <winserver.support@winserver.com>
Cc: "ASRG" <asrg@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification


> > Doesn't this apply to any approach? A DNS based solution can also be
> > overloaded just as well.
> >
>
> DNS lookups are *much* more lightweight than SMTP sessions. According to
> RFC 1035, DNS queries can be done over UDP, with a limit of 512 bytes
> per query, with the usual ones much smaller than that. This has two
> advantages - very low transfer size, and also the usage of UDP does not
> require an acknowledgement to be sent back unlike TCP, reducing traffic.

With the good DNS system,  UPD is the first approach.  However, it has
provisions to switch to a TCP stream connection if UDP fails.

> Also, DNS information tends to be cached all over the Internet.

Thats the only good thing about it. :-)

In either case, that doesn't stop it from being overwhelmed.

> ALSO, please do not take my comments as an attack on your approach,
> rather I think that what is missing here, is the fact that your approach
> is not 100% compliant with the standards.

I don't think you are correct.   Everything I do is 100% compliant.
Everything else you stated is not worth even acknowledging.  Its nonsense.

PS: Do me a favor, quit dumping the RFC on me.  If you want to refer to an
section, please do.  But I know what the specifications are backwards and
forwards with real compliant products in the market place.

---
Hector Santos
WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server"
support: http://www.winserver.com
sales: http://www.santronics.com



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg