Re: [DNSOP] Cache utilization review and suggestion for EDNS client-subnet

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org> Thu, 04 February 2016 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <muks@isc.org>
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 5C0931B2E59 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 04:46:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R7R2nhmAjLEM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 04:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.banu.com (mail.banu.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:140:644b::225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258CF1B2E58 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 04:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jurassic.l0.malgudi.org (unknown [115.118.217.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.banu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AFBB2FA028A; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 12:46:27 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 18:16:21 +0530
From: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>
To: Yuri Schaeffer <yuri@nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <20160204124621.GA28915@jurassic.l0.malgudi.org>
References: <20151228022914.GA11204@jurassic.l0.malgudi.org> <56B32D33.5020203@nlnetlabs.nl> <20160204111710.GA8514@jurassic.l0.malgudi.org> <56B33CC0.8070102@nlnetlabs.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jRHKVT23PllUwdXP"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56B33CC0.8070102@nlnetlabs.nl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/LfZHCDASYnm_9u4a2tYV5ycWUXk>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Cache utilization review and suggestion for EDNS client-subnet
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: <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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:46:33 -0000

Hi Yuri

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:57:52PM +0100, Yuri Schaeffer wrote:
> Hi Mukund,
> 
> > The draft doesn't state that the answer is for the SOURCE
> > PREFIX-LENGTH when SCOPE > SOURCE. At all other times, the answer
> > is meant to be cached at the SCOPE PREFIX-LENGTH.
> 
> I indeed use SCOPE to determine where the answer would fit in the tree
> in my cache. But that doesn't mean I discard SOURCE. I still need
> SOURCE to determine if this cache entry is applicable to the next
> query. There's no contradiction here.

I don't follow. Are you saying you are saving the SOURCE PREFIX-LENGTH
from the original query (responsible for the cache entry) alongside the
cache entry? If so, I don't follow why this is required. Can you
explain?

Or do you mean the use of SOURCE PREFIX-LENGTH from a subsequent query
when looking into the cache?

		Mukund