IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dbound] Updated draft-levine-orgboundary-03

Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net> Thu, 12 November 2015 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <casey@deccio.net>
X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E581A001B for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:13:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.922 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_TOOL=2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 b--m86aGbwyF for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:13:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 323FA1A0016 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:13:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wmww144 with SMTP id w144so209732588wmw.1 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:13:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=deccio.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5tKusFxF47EHwcJgF+zElHWszHOdQ4vj/dt6daRD08Y=; b=M0Fb5wrTUC5iepBnadmSIVlb33qNghoxdQaSwxIB/qUsCVkP3zJimzXMRKeKmPQepD zXcvHF/q49+V9HdR5XWgVsGf2I6wyMwEwdVx0qLGJk3I+a/oeINjZF5gD2NEgo0NkunI ZyBKvF2oFjr5vifCdGz3jbHndvmi/CEHc8Dlw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5tKusFxF47EHwcJgF+zElHWszHOdQ4vj/dt6daRD08Y=; b=AMAC9vpaZuWcf8mHrNPVTAnpeQKWLTAwraVgGH6S0zbWavaYJjxpzQe2ytcdNQd/eZ z0BxtyVsGlrtjbXhaW6KliL/oaAwIzec2wQF5EoGlDxyWZZwVnArRHEt4xZICfQugZF5 5wHw8wfPP5ZyIoJXErBDcjw42k4EuE0mko5uOtXza0oNllo1GJSHdt7cf25D+kAv+H0i +fBCJ/+hcvlmfNnOJBSml7Ix/MXkmmqsblrgcRc5Tnm3qJKH6Svmk0b3vEpgTP3B6/ro pcZeCzuDEowv0jMyGjcHSUKLMrtnwxcPQ9PAnI3UXWH+whcMd/bgMD4RI/ZZJQqmG3Ym QBuQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkp1y/6H71Y21xvv9S1npOLIeA8A9wvVV6PgsvXXdW3MzztmHhe7C6NyIfodkKh0QdaOWtA
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.28.129.131 with SMTP id c125mr41419624wmd.21.1447348411710; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:13:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.195.12.137 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:13:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1511121201440.7480@ary.lan>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1511091838260.92970@ary.local> <20151112021154.2231.qmail@ary.lan> <CAEKtLiQAiQ2gnv5828yifGCZb_0oH1kTSLsx8p0EaPoqA-k=ig@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1511121201440.7480@ary.lan>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:13:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEKtLiQwNiod05dhfaLwgv9MME80vDzCXLV4Lp+BiQA-sdom9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114247f6f2500a05245b0fd0"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/IP99QrsZqXUgtFYvP2Bbd4RK4so>
Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" <dbound@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dbound] Updated draft-levine-orgboundary-03
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS tree bounds <dbound.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dbound/>
List-Post: <mailto:dbound@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 17:13:34 -0000

Hi John,

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:05 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> - Why the use of wildcards?  The time complexity doesn't improve with
>> this.  It just seems like added complexity, so you can query for the
>> entire
>> name, rather than label-by-label.  But as, mentioned previously, this is
>> revealing to higher level DNS authorities.
>>
>
> Wildcards make the lookup O(1) rather than O(N).  I think that's an
> important difference.


Big-O notation characterizes the upper bound of algorithmic complexity.
The lookup process is bounded by n iterations.  Wildcards do not change the
upper bound to a constant lookup time.  Just as the NXDOMAIN in ODUP does
not change its time complexity from O(n) to O(1).  The bounding remains
O(n) in the current draft--or O(n*m) if you consider the service lookups.

Casey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email