IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 16 August 2017 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 777F813219C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 WJxWdUEyso9M for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22a.google.com (mail-qk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22a]) (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 4F1161321A2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id d145so19509406qkc.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=TLOB2Fm0zWkNQr0h9V6gl2oqE+pWukkMU6JeWDjxU0I=; b=FtF06NaXtmhDC+jJ9YaOOf0ebQ3MjQggqMfMkIQ1OJzF9WiFi119kRBrO5dPLXJA8p LugzxEIfNmRjeAI+9ccfz5jB55JpmstlM9L+/mYv1EH/8HQd0QCnvrDFvltllSOWjYoj AsBOYugH82lvACBHPo4+mF7fT3iEtRweUbaIPEyElmZQWofZ7M7xSsJjbPDOlN27hYFk 734Cd78ZfLyZYNKtQPiMHFkpe4645K+S4GqSXpm0iY60WNWiBiOqbbgqts/mvZdiCjDM sKE4QPHqoPwTuLTpENpPePTQgfvZZr2w13bGuSw6sDDjo6KxOHlMNrgXW55TAaWEXu72 BYgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=TLOB2Fm0zWkNQr0h9V6gl2oqE+pWukkMU6JeWDjxU0I=; b=Bi8tKCDGdo058fznFxnsPdfJ0zCWjUyT2FA7VQpCEiEZ6BIQaCzuA88YNr+y7mN7Cv IuxkucQkHZ7atWzc0J4wpnkyGWL1ZH9v6aRadYVbdt9ebWkJUWCsEmAwAnhzsX2vDOuS KAXcx4//6gsfLJmpm8UrnT8hfLCT3gE2jOYxORCcSAtRwQ+KL7GjD5IAe6fS6HfIZ9Pp YatAXLeK/LJyYypMWJ0QKKQpRAcf/2bN7U2KIet19ts6ixsxEiPmI8WM4sQ/XWhuzKch 0YZ0cCt66+M7qSyyfM4UL52xiew6Ry/NKUm9clgb+fz8+UDT8XVvu5qaVVEya8EUanNS 2/sQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5j3kt4o5lZVNB4+WQXFce/e/sQsx7ptLFzRgLp1NlWS+M847kn7 +OzRDl+ILqDzVbYNUUWGQg==
X-Received: by 10.55.23.5 with SMTP id i5mr2060567qkh.116.1502888070378; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cavall.ether.lede.home (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s36sm486707qts.77.2017.08.16.05.54.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <FFA80661-78A3-40B8-8DBC-FE79E873BCAF@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DB62EF6C-C356-497B-B21D-F8AE76FE54EE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 08:54:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CANLjSvWkDTgqTg+fy2jZzfcaY7e1VWB11yiWMzO3MfcrCGVLSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
To: Lanlan Pan <abbypan@gmail.com>
References: <CANLjSvWFh0ER47=SFJB-3rkTJKT_OxcjKwcD9-DUkDDxJTo=+g@mail.gmail.com> <201708151341.v7FDfNqR039481@calcite.rhyolite.com> <CAPt1N1=2eFRBCHYptn6W=3ruFisN0xRcMQSPPakgZXnmsaTS5w@mail.gmail.com> <CANLjSvWkDTgqTg+fy2jZzfcaY7e1VWB11yiWMzO3MfcrCGVLSQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1xeU4LRoPmL6PyUDhXCRyucoNRw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt
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, 16 Aug 2017 12:54:33 -0000

El 16 ag 2017, a les 0:19, Lanlan Pan <abbypan@gmail.com> va escriure:
> We analyzed our recursive query log, about 18.6 billion queries from 12/01/2015 to 12/07/2015.
> We found about 4.7 Million temporary domains occupy the recursive's cache, which are subdomain wildcards from Skype, QQ, Mcafee, Microsoft, 360safedns, Cloudfront, Greencompute...
> 
> Temporary Domain Names/ All Names: 41.7%
> 
> Queries for Temporary Domain Names/ All Queries: 0.12%

Okay.   So it sounds like you have an algorithm for detecting temporary domain names.   It seems to me that a quicker solution to your problem is to publish an operational document describing that algorithm and proposing ways that recursive caches can use it to prune such domains from the cache early.

I'm curious if you studied the behavior of existing recursive caches in the presence of these domains: do they in fact cache at the rate you predict they will?   The reason I ask is that I know that my own company's cache, which is widely deployed in the exact scenario you are describing, has a pretty sophisticated set of heuristics for deciding what to cache.   It would surprise me if it exhibited the behavior you are concerned about.

BTW, your paper is behind a paywall, so please don't cite it as a reason to do anything in the IETF.   If you want the IETF to take action based on what is in the paper, you need to publish it openly.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email