Re: [dns-privacy] Multiple DNS requests per packet, multiple packet responses

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

[ still finding your replies to replies basiclly unreadable due to your
   email client quoting settings, so if I'm mis-attributing, thats why.
   When these go like 3 deep, I basically have to just give up and delete
   the emails unread. You are the only person I have this problem with,
   and plenty of people use gmail.]

> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Tony Finch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>       Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>       >
>       > In particular, if we let a DNS query ask more than one question at a
>       > time then we improve latency of responses.
> 
> No need to change the protocol, just make the queries concurrently. If
> your implementation makes that slow, fix the implementation. You would
> have to fix it anyway in order to support the protocol changes, so you
> might as well do the fix without the protocol change. No need to waste
> time and money on talking about paper protocols.
> 
> 
> This is not a change. It is implementing RFC1035 as written. 
> 
> BIND and co have done it wrong all these years. If the implementations are not wrong then where is the RFC that states QDCOUNT = 1?

We tested this a few months ago while discussing draft-wouters-edns-keepalive using
a modified dig command.

All servers support multiple queries at once fine. Only google dns
capped it at 80 queries before closing the connection. Things will be
different when the TCP connection is idle of course, as the server might
hang up on you, hence the above mentioned draft to match up client and
server behaviour.

> I have talked to the engineers at several browser companies and they tell me that parallel queries do not actually work the way you imagine.

All the more reason for draft-wouters-edns-keepalive (and
draft-wouters-edns-chain-query)

Paul