-- Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Given that caching is entirely optional, adds a layer of deployment
complexity
> and adds almost no benefit to most receivers, I would not want to rely on
> wide-spread deployment as a defense. The internet only deploys what it has
to,
> not what it should do.
If this were true, there would be no DNS caching either.
Caching happens when it's in the cachors interest to do so.
You're not comparing the same thing. A DNS cache is not optional given the way
that resolver libraries are written and the way that the DNS is deployed. A KRS
cache is entirely optional.
If you want to ensure deployment of caches, you'll need to make the interface
such that no other option is viable.
A better analogy is to compare the deployment of web caches - which is spotty
at best and primarily done by a subset of ISPs to save money.
Mark.