Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale
tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 18 October 2017 11:51 UTC
Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.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 5D51C13305E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 b92ttwH6_WS1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x233.google.com (mail-wr0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::233]) (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 752411342D1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x233.google.com with SMTP id z99so2252796wrc.12 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GH3B8BcnmoS1fQTCDx+5XCwroyK/b1u2FVTHzorYfV0=; b=k/PTVKWReiqj6RiOd+rYJ/Nb+0YKb228QvefJwdlG5IjzOoc82OtaF6y4j/zu7WNH8 Uogm/9ZHRU8Kjk3/7Aie199v1fHel1zmtFjHbWi+wYEQlJVkNn0UO8MQ5uxRj08VdG8+ hsc8IvxVGPv2k5nm39ohqr8Qcc1X0u3nQ5OdR4vh/N6FxdIX0xezOnT2udgZgb+noExI njL0eKGNog/fkd26r14CJRbl3GswdactaY76ZhLUL3FTXF6z3SCF/dE6+WvhygF/w6Qc DBWsfRU7idUUbCIgl+X7DriVtXLMIhJD70oKFuUNQmG6X4Dw4hVjKpHoUOk6BUQf2xGP 4mWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GH3B8BcnmoS1fQTCDx+5XCwroyK/b1u2FVTHzorYfV0=; b=YdTt48giEYp1hkTVVsIxTV6aozkuGs3ZsFgwMxoprOBqfAdz+/rtRQUEC/DzQVbsQN 0JPxC1lqq8VGA7rYW0lt9qQUsMej+Bc8gKiseY2iY3tiJG2snneQk4E/eimCZiAazJoz QTsvtawSy2OgtJtOnUwASSDRTaFt75GL5sSSnXSMuxFc/1pGjLGQIT5kUVlUZE+n/srf djDwSB6DRUQUFzT2vJNXaU5Ru/OGJ0DJ/PtY+TebFSFxKTMWkEKWRSz7u9ss48l9bxVC viUR1WbTvuSiHVMjJTKqCfCR8ZoLdl4QJbeypWW+ZXdKGpMcfAXLa7OOBoFuWXXj5uQU hSow==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWNmbhzT2YhnbJ1HLogYU8HzsVBoBJjMLVgjCoAZdYNro4W3pBZ Y2AbpUhdrk3cyygSUgKkvCMTth0aG/9SlT8JopA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+R47h8ZPkoA8X2g95SGgoamOrIoTqQ1Mu7imeeEQQSH/kr1Rk+s2RpGehDDB/xFDn3ZI4FWsJ57dvxH9gn5MnM=
X-Received: by 10.223.133.99 with SMTP id 90mr6545838wrh.101.1508327481016; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.184.60 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC=TB12Y8nAPZAFy3WiXskuAzb+3cwR-Kqp_WoG8VPu+6AfuBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADyWQ+FHDHcmq-mr0BCHS5A8yvaOQmhTjve1_DmZN6vAc=BKyA@mail.gmail.com> <20170907154234.3z2zbju2sciiy7wr@nic.fr> <ybltw0emmvh.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <8295055.TIQDDEhZcU@localhost.localdomain> <20170907221241.GA1031@puck.nether.net> <20170908020710.0170284A3195@rock.dv.isc.org> <CA+nkc8CaJ+4_SCwm5Nbvd8r5SaKcTFhRq4jNV8RHp91Mrt5BhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC=TB12Y8nAPZAFy3WiXskuAzb+3cwR-Kqp_WoG8VPu+6AfuBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 07:51:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+GPEopoXvnxN4Jsi_=yGKCmitL+L-Ptpx_iPqBbZWBL6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marek Vavruša <mvavrusa@cloudflare.com>
Cc: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>, IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0d293eb60532055bd0db2a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BOqpJhfHGyYg4wvFOBdHbMCa4a0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale
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, 18 Oct 2017 11:51:25 -0000
The adoption period finished sone time ago with strong consensus to adopt. Authors will want to upload their latest version. tim On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Marek Vavruša <mvavrusa@cloudflare.com> wrote: > I support the adoption of this document. Was there a discussion of any > actual downsides besides "I'd like to know if it's stale" and > monitoring? > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Part of the problem is that we have one TTL value for both freshness > >> and don't use beyond. > >> > >> This is fixable. It is possible to specify two timer values. It > >> does require adding signaling between recursive servers and > >> authoritative servers, on zone transfers and update requests. > >> > >> You basically add a additional timer field to every record immediately > >> after the TTL field. This is only returned if the client has > >> signalled support for the extended field, I suggest using the last > >> DNS header bit for this as you can determine how you will parse the > >> response base on whether the bit is set in the response or not. > >> This field is used to expire records from the cache and its value > >> is set to the TTL field if the server has learnt the record from > >> server that doesn't support the extension. > >> > >> The existing TTL field is used for freshness checking. When a query > >> comes in after that value has expired a freshness check is performed > >> similar to the existing prefetches that happen today. A TTL of 1 > >> is returned unless the original TTL was 0 in which case 0 is returned. > >> > >> New client - new recursive server - new authservers > >> > >> example.com. 300 86400 IN A 1.2.3.4 > >> > >> +300 seconds > >> > >> example.com. 1 86100 IN A 1.2.3.4 > >> (background query is in process) > >> > >> Old client - new recursive server - new authservers > >> > >> example.com. 300 IN A 1.2.3.4 > >> > >> +300 seconds > >> > >> example.com. 1 IN A 1.2.3.4 > >> (background query is in process) > >> > >> New client - new recusive server - old auth servers > >> > >> example.com. 300 300 IN A 1.2.3.4 > >> > >> +300 seconds > >> (record has expired from cache, > >> new query is performed) > >> > >> example.com. 300 300 IN A 1.2.3.4 > >> > >> For UPDATE a replacement opcode would be cleanest way to signal the > >> new format is being used. NOTIMP should be returned by servers > >> that don't support the new opcode. > >> > >> There will be a few broken servers that just echo back the new > >> header bit. > >> > >> This way the authoritative servers still control how long records > >> are stored for. Dead servers will get a little bit of traffic until > >> the the refresh completes. If the authorative servers are under > >> attack the clients still see a answer. > >> > >> The alternative is to perform the refresh query and if it fails to > >> complete within X milliseconds return the cached data rather than > >> returning the cached data and doing the refresh in the background. > >> > >> Mark > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Andrews, ISC > >> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > >> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org > > > > > > While I like the idea of a "don't use beyond" timer, I think it will be > a > > very long time before it is widely deployed (and actually configured by > zone > > owners), and therefore won't solve our immediate need. It would be > great if > > clients could opt-in, but again I don't see that happening anytime > soon. So > > I would start with resolver-operators deciding what seems best for their > > clients (which is hat is happening whether we like it or not). Adding > > client opt-out/opt-in would be good. Signalling to say that a response > is > > stale would be good. Adding the second timer (both per-RR and as a zone > > default value, like TTL is handled) would be good. > > > > On a related note - the SOA "expire" timer tells a slave how long to keep > > serving "stale" zone data when the master cannot be reached. Would that > be > > a reasonable default value for how long a resolver should serve "stale" > data > > when the authoritative servers cannot be reached? (Currently I think > most > > people set a very high value compared to the TTL.) > > > > -- > > Bob Harold > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DNSOP mailing list > > DNSOP@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
- [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnso… tjw ietf
- [DNSOP] 答复: DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Davey Song (宋林健)
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Jared Mauch
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Barry Raveendran Greene
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Vladimír Čunát
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Vladimír Čunát
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… 神明達哉
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Jared Mauch
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- [DNSOP] 答复: DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Davey Song (宋林健)
- Re: [DNSOP] 答复: DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-t… Vladimír Čunát
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Robert Edmonds
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… 神明達哉
- Re: [DNSOP] 答复: DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-t… Lanlan Pan
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… Marek Vavruša
- Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-… tjw ietf