Re: [DNSOP] Enough latency obsession Re: Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-00

Mukund Sivaraman <> Wed, 17 December 2014 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0B71A1A1D for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:51:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vt_7WVG6mHcn for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626E01A1A1B for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DA9CE60035; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:51:23 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 06:21:17 +0530
From: Mukund Sivaraman <>
To: Nicholas Weaver <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UugvWAfsgieZRqgk"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc:, Paul Vixie <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Enough latency obsession Re: Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:51:28 -0000

Hi Nicholas

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:44:40PM -0500, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
> Its time to stop obsessing over latency in DNS!
> DNS doesn't exist in a vacuum, but then goes to at minimum, a TCP
> handshake, and who knows what else beyond it.  Amdahl's law matters.
> How many headaches would go away if all DNS is over TCP?  And how much
> would it really make a difference in Latency?

Surely a lot of problems would go away. But I don't think we can say
that latency doesn't matter. Though it is 2 roundtrips instead of 1, the
wait effectively doubles, and may increase further by a ~constant factor
during recursion. This would be conspicuous on long networks.

As DNS resolution is at the head of the batch of items that is done when
a user uses a network service, it adds to the average turnaround time of
every item on the list.

TCP performance "feels" different depending on what it is used for. On
LFNs, slow-start can throttle up fast (being a doubling throttle), and
due to the receive window TCP can deliver a lot of data quickly
vs. DNS-like UDP that restricts flow to request/response pairs.

For DNS, where there isn't a lot of data to transmit (in normal
queries), TCP connection setup is a big part of overall time to service
a request and it may not amortize well.