[bmwg] Benchmarking DNS64 Resolution Performance - DNS46
Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp> Tue, 19 April 2016 02:51 UTC
Return-Path: <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5944312E994; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EuRROcErfxOU; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailrelay22.naist.jp (mailrelay22.naist.jp [163.221.80.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624E912E91B; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpost22.naist.jp (mailscan22.naist.jp [163.221.80.59]) by mailrelay22.naist.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C452CE13; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:51:34 +0900 (JST)
Received: from naist-wavenet125-176.naist.jp (naist-wavenet125-176.naist.jp [163.221.125.176]) by mailpost22.naist.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ACEA6E12; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:51:34 +0900 (JST)
From: Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_65E28D97-6DA0-4F14-9AA7-514710E8CFEE"
Message-Id: <51335DDB-33A8-40A2-902D-4095203CD090@is.naist.jp>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:51:37 +0900
To: bmwg@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-TM-AS-MML: No
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1392-8.0.0.1202-22270.004
X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.037-5.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--9.037-5.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 0hS4Bu2MPG07MwFDNigBPl4t42nqFS2wIXwmUbdDUtV9KSzrHmr0tQBC e/zihxdXii/ufR1X6vxT46Ow+EhYOMx+JMtoDii7Ed+K6O5Nt536BsQfyBVOrQIVQeTIZUJHJtX vCXMq88QJojDNAxR7kjNKWYiz0CE69mnDjfUPq574JyR+b5tvoHzK3Q9zSFL7Hf+hltsf+tetCU ssfRAbT2MNX/9K+QfeSEQN/D/3cG6svgu4NQN9u1c/CedjlcvkIQuL2QZAP/aCdYyKP4Orsq1Dn vO5cSZcNuVzoZ6LieUiPTMUjkOgkl4KsHfYo5LQ+TdKNkxxkWTmBxD2j3KOm01dEq64b4VXPp45 L3W4nwWiqgrnLPR5UmY0Io4Kxb86WDH2sIy8+j87LF3pX3rdVLjxa5EVBV1q4vM1YF6AJbbVZ0g 740lL+c3FPozUD+OzMM4ioayl4t151TqU12Mb2gPb516tYfF1X2RI7DZukGksWr3T+ftzD+Ipbx 4s4H4nP2T4afKQIIldwscyiI9dkJY2rVcOvqlN1Z2t4bOx6qdb4eVWiuZmpni+avRpvUdzS4W/M RhJ1X4=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/XRXvVOSl4PLmYeGxeUnkAFP3-sc>
Subject: [bmwg] Benchmarking DNS64 Resolution Performance - DNS46
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 02:51:38 -0000
Hello BMWG and DNSOP Members, We apologize for crossposting, but we are looking for specialized feedback regarding DNS operations. In BMWG, we have been working on a draft aimed at Benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01>). The draft includes a benchmark called DNS resolution performance. Currently, it only targets DNS64 as the complement of NAT64. During the IETF95 presentation in BMWG, we asked if DNS46 is worth the effort of being included in the scope. We (the authors) believe it has a very narrow use case and it is not worth the effort. Part of our reasoning is the lack of an RFC until now, although individual efforts exist since 2009 (Please see: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xli-behave-dns46-for-stateless-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xli-behave-dns46-for-stateless-00>). In the IETF95 BMWG meeting, there was no opinion for including or not including DNS46 in the scope of the draft, and Al Morton (as chair) suggested relaying the question on the BMWG and DNSOP mailing lists. So, here it goes: Is there anyone in BMWG or DNSOP who thinks DNS46 should be included in a future version of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01> ? Thank you, Marius Georgescu Gábor Lencse
- [bmwg] Benchmarking DNS64 Resolution Performance … Marius Georgescu