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

Paul Vixie <> Mon, 29 December 2014 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BD11ACDBF for <>; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 23:05:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.791
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XEoxC1V1RbwB for <>; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 23:05:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B7221ACDC0 for <>; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 23:05:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cb:c1f6:e25f:b5d2:ddde] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cb:c1f6:e25f:b5d2:ddde]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FBAF182EA; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:05:10 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 23:05:09 -0800
From: Paul Vixie <>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Windows/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Guangqing Deng <>
References: <>, <>, <>, <>, <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040905090103010508010909"
Cc: dnsop <>, Mukund Sivaraman <>, Nicholas Weaver <>
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: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:05:16 -0000

> Guangqing Deng <>
> Sunday, December 28, 2014 10:52 PM
> ... there do exist some ones who think the DNS resolution delay is not
> as short as they expected, especially those running applications
> depending on the DNS resolution.

early internet applications were written with the assumption of on-host
or on-lan RDNS, such that a cached answer would be almost immediate
(less than 1 millisecond). using google dns or opendns or any other
cloud-oriented ("anycast") RDNS has a higher time-cost than that.
servers in san francisco, san jose, palo alto, or fremont are ~5
milliseconds from me. opendns and google dns are ~8ms from me. my
on-campus (well, at my house) RDNS servers are ~400 microseconds (~0.4

so, i agree. and i was half way down the path of considering how a light
weight caching DNS shim could be installed on a host or on a LAN that
would do RTT-based server selection to keep track of closer/farther
servers, and i realized, i was reinventing RDNS. one of my new great
regrets of things-not-done-while-at-ISC was to make BIND RDNS into a
binary package that could be installed on any windows or mac/os or
android or iOS device, with cloud/subscription based configuration (for
RPZ policy).

Paul Vixie