IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Ask for advice of 3 new RRs for precise traffic scheduling

bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com> Wed, 13 December 2017 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <bert@hubertnet.nl>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9752B126BF0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 01:50:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, 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 iWMZkq94xh4b for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 01:50:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs.powerdns.com (xs.powerdns.com [82.94.213.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 338F8124B17 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 01:50:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server.ds9a.nl (unknown [86.82.68.237]) by xs.powerdns.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 502919FB57; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:50:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by server.ds9a.nl (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EDBCDAC3FFA; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:50:15 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:50:15 +0100
From: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
To: "zuopeng@cnnic.cn" <zuopeng@cnnic.cn>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20171213095015.GC30523@server.ds9a.nl>
References: <2017121315404971736813@cnnic.cn> <20171213081823.GA8970@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20171213084342.GA30523@server.ds9a.nl> <201712131736325755287@cnnic.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201712131736325755287@cnnic.cn>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1klVT6tyvuo6YAIW7qGTztkX_lA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Ask for advice of 3 new RRs for precise traffic scheduling
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:50:34 -0000

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:36:32PM +0800, zuopeng@cnnic.cn wrote:
>  so far as i know, many CDNs already use similar methods as you mentioned in PowerDNS 4.1.1 
>  but  i think only the  Authoritative Server change is not enough,  support on the recursive server is also very important .
>   because the resolver determines the reponse to clients.

This is true.  A typical resolver will serve around 50,000 to 2,000,000
users (although this is rare). This means that for 60 seconds, you shift
around 'a hundred thousand' potential users. 

In practice, this appears to be good enough from what I hear.

Or let me put it another way, before we burden the DNS protocol with another
record type we have to add downgrade/workaround/DNSSEC support for, we
should have numbers that say it solves a problem.

CDNs could maybe chime in.

	Bert

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status