IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] [DNSOP] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver-00.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 16 October 2022 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73532C14CEFC; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 16:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NpnedHyvLn2q; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 16:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7891C14F746; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 16:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BAC18011; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 20:21:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id dOpIOVdq626y; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 20:21:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C0618010; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 20:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1665966079; bh=6vAng7O0uTC1we3y/ulrWWa6gg1TE42VarpsNqKQeIM=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=HwhtboBZzhFocfMLkzgSZ33DPQro+rNsTUxDItXqV1nG3LdV6iJoYfgwfO1O5EgeI dQZwHQJ8SDa+O5LY8HsS2ZeUX9yODmnMCxjvmmDPqOXalNIPEfiKnFdOWepi5yaihT xAag3lfzq5pcOuiq0Q50Yu64cSh3t65pQNuJ8CpIsEopVuc5rm7p3EDwFc4alVQNgn akcOOpHATx/7ViBtC+m6XPsE1nOivz3SRy3BTxVy95axKWHQdgj7+U6X7sft/sN7q4 Nb5AMSEtCivc/wTPM2CKfyV8BsuiaG79VCr7qxP3AzYXIp4Lxpaend8XqmLc978avW b89iUU7hMOgUg==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408F2121; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
cc: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, 6man list <ipv6@ietf.org>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <A57A3260-EA40-4FCC-A31C-A0EE2428A414@apnic.net>
References: <CAD9w2qZedv6zedSkTfa=4SyhXwc2r__xccEQsJq0o4okKDtPpg@mail.gmail.com> <B96102D6-878C-4BBC-A8E4-B2DE9848F584@hopcount.ca> <25323.1665953603@localhost> <A57A3260-EA40-4FCC-A31C-A0EE2428A414@apnic.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:58:00 -0400
Message-ID: <4964.1665964680@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/uQ8ZonipB9mL82OaumJS7i97tSs>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [DNSOP] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver-00.txt
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/behave/>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2022 23:58:11 -0000

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
    >> On 17 Oct 2022, at 7:53 am, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >> I think that's because
    >> recursive nameserves effectively have always done an equivalent to "happy
    >> eyeballs", so the risk is low.

    > That certainly was not the case in 2015: https://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2015-10-04-dns-dual-stack.pdf

    > I have not seen a large scale measurement since then but I suspect that nothing has changed. i.e.:
    > recursive resolvers do not do the equivalent of happy eyeballs
    > behaviour.

What I'm saying (based upon my understanding, and some long ago reading of
code) is that recursive nameservers remember which NS were too slow or
non-functional, and try to avoid them in the future.
(I agree that this isn't exactly happy eyeballs: we don't do requests in
parallel and pick the winner)

So if my v6 infrastructure for my authoritative nameservers fails, but the v4
continues to work, that I'm not too badly off.  My experience is that this
resilience can often mask failed servers for months :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email