Re: [dane] AD bit handling in stub-resolvers: conclusions and compromises

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 09 April 2014 01:37 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20ED1A0004 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=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 IZLA08dHlSiL for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a27.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B021A0002 for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a27.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a27.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9A5598058 for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=iPmRAsLZYUk80hqafxF9 TQhxc+c=; b=sRUwrcwXp35SFDhQxGFkDXx31VPeZ706JDWkG7/mf/HbpT/Uq1fE BcRP+fU42lx6sa2CB0Qoc8wh0UZdfKbDU33dAsmilIu1Dt6Gy7kVwg3VE3TqnfMb KCQNC+H/Pc4AFPDexOp6gU8du3rBsy0akBCi9SOpila7Qhtoa0wMByU=
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a27.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5F86598057 for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id bs8so8777190wib.5 for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.105.132 with SMTP id gm4mr9444539wib.39.1397007432868; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.129.197 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140408235025.757001343582@rock.dv.isc.org>
References: <533EB433.5060204@redhat.com> <0lha63rb6i.fsf@wjh.hardakers.net> <20140408174936.GL12559@mournblade.imrryr.org> <20140408235025.757001343582@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 20:37:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOj_J3KZvgKLQy50opNzb_uWJPBkpsuTckc48s8N=NpahQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/R2apRhJIQnX8v_wQBUGDJjp5Aeo
Cc: dane@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dane] AD bit handling in stub-resolvers: conclusions and compromises
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 01:37:16 -0000

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>; wrote:
> In message <20140408174936.GL12559@mournblade.imrryr.org>;, Viktor Dukhovni writes:
>> For me doing it in application, means costly integration of complex
>> code into the application that will add considerable latency because
>> the application will have a cold DNSSEC cache (and will now need
>> a cache where one was not needed before...  The Plan-9 approach of
>> moving security features into system services is I think far
>> preferable.
>
> What latency?  This is the output of delve (see BIND 9.10) which
> is a is standalone stub validator talking to a local validating resolver
> doing a full validation from the root.  This uses exactly the same
> code that named uses to validate its answers.  The only difference
> is a slightly different cache implementation is used.
>
>         28.321 - 28.298 = 00.023
>
> from start to finish.

23ms is a lot in some contexts...  Single run performance numbers are
not that enough.  The more interesting question is how the system
performs under load with and without a local caching validating
server.

Nico
--