Re: [DNSOP] "Optimization" in draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Tue, 06 January 2015 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ogud@ogud.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB571A1B40 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:08:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.513
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BIGNUM_EMAILS=1.387, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 n5Xjuk_slDlB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp101.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp101.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FD141A1B3E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id AB71518049E; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:08:19 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: ogud-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPSA id 17C36180445; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:08:18 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender-Id: ogud@ogud.com
Received: from [10.20.30.43] (pool-74-96-189-180.washdc.fios.verizon.net [74.96.189.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.4.2); Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:08:19 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8B41306C-F0B1-450B-B87A-82B58B83916B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
In-Reply-To: <90A16157-BBEE-46FC-9DD9-F9C04292A5AF@nic.br>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:08:17 -0500
Message-Id: <FF9F5E15-3153-495B-9A2C-58B644EDC770@ogud.com>
References: <CAH1iCirCRpJxHWu62nCSTCmSumXfTNHi=-jt5eWXzRgspJjm9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCip7iGgM=eiaVcy3fHx+KdOJgd5Rh8zLsnDPMgoEnE-HvA@mail.gmail.com> <0BB798D6-60F4-492D-819A-EF4E0F5848B5@virtualized.org> <20150104193602.GA23109@sources.org> <4FF33728-5940-475A-AA41-A197295388AD@virtualized.org> <5D8FEE1D-1283-4F67-B5B9-E2572C3D2185@vpnc.org> <90A16157-BBEE-46FC-9DD9-F9C04292A5AF@nic.br>
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/B_LfdBlOpHPm5fNFzdGa2-9lllQ
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] "Optimization" in draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:08:24 -0000

> On Jan 5, 2015, at 12:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Em 05/01/2015, à(s) 14:33:000, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> escreveu:
>> 
>> On Jan 4, 2015, at 12:13 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
>>>>> "Sending the full qname to the authoritative name server is a
>>>>> tradition, not a protocol requirment."
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'd actually call it an optimization, not a tradition.
>>>> 
>>>> In many cases, sending the full qname degrades performance so I would
>>>> not call it an optimization.
>>> 
>>> If there are cases in which sending the full QNAME degrades performance, it might be useful to document them in the draft (off the top of my head, I can't imagine non-broken cases where that would be true, but I haven't thought about it too long).
>>> 
>>> The reason I'd call it an optimization is that in the case where a server is authoritative for multiple layers of hierarchy, sending the full QNAME allows that server to bypass the referrals for all intermediate layers of hierarchy and simply respond to the depth it knows.  If QNAME minimization is applied, that shortcut isn't possible.
>> 
>> +1 to David's comment. I have always heard that sending the full name was an optimization for authoritative severs that spanned more than one level, and that such servers were common in "the early days". It is worth pointing this out in this draft, and to also say that that situation may be much less common now than it was in antiquity.
> 
> 
> I can point to 25 million domain names that currently benefit from such optimization in .br and .uk alone, probably more if you add other TLDs that register on the 3rd level. 
> 

Of those the ones using DNSSEC will suffer due to the difficulty of getting DNSKEY and DS records for the “skipped” delegations. 

Olafur

> 
> Rubens
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org <mailto:DNSOP@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>