Re: [DNSOP] my lone hum against draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses

On 19 July 2016 at 09:46, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> I thought the proposal specifically excluded support for this sort of
> query in any case other than for queries from authoritative servers.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean about "this sort of query".    There wouldn't
be any special query sent to recursives.  The response from recursives
could include the additional records called for by the EXTRA records cached
when the authoritative was queried.  I don't see anything about that being
prohibited in the draft... in fact I see no reason for § 6 if it was
prohibited.  There'd be no reason for recursives to ever receive the EXTRA
records themselves.

> On Jul 19, 2016 09:37, "Matthew Pounsett" <matt@conundrum.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 19 July 2016 at 09:19, Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Moin!
>>>
>>> On 19 Jul 2016, at 9:00, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Jul 19, 2016 8:36 AM, "Ralf Weber" <dns@fl1ger.de> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Except that if you have a decent size and hot Cache with refreshing
>>> >> these records will be in there anyway. IMHO you gained nothing, but I
>>> >> agree with Jim Reid that it would be good to have data on this.
>>> >
>>> > Nothing except some DNS round trips.
>>> > How could that matter though?
>>> As said I don't believe we have additional round trips between the
>>> recursive and the authoritative server in most of the cases. That is
>>> what we need data for though. DNS and applications that use DNS have
>>> unbelievable levels of caching. So while this all might apply to you
>>> if you run your own resolver just for you, it's not the case in big
>>> cache deployments most people use (be it their ISP or some big public
>>> resolver).
>>>
>>> While I tend to agree that the optimization gain between the recursive
>> and authoritative server is probably  minimal, the potential gain between
>> the recursive and the stub is huge.  Other than the fact that the
>> explanation focuses on the authoritative, I don't see any reason this needs
>> to be limited to recursive->authoritative conversations.  Indeed, with the
>> OPT signalling a recursive could obtain the EXTRA records and provide the
>> same optimized answers to stubs.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
>>