Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-08.txt

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Fri, 15 December 2017 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 93B8F1241FC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:55:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 Wngqux4FzGKD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:55:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (dawn.hardakers.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:187::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B66CF1201FA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:55:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5602F2233F; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:55:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Cc: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <151199364931.4845.3034001091375154653@ietfa.amsl.com> <yblvahshg6z.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <9c71768d-4807-3d0a-b4b1-0ac8d066fe9f@nthpermutation.com> <yblindiavlm.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <6d239b9a-fd1e-46a3-c705-6851dd8ffe0a@nthpermutation.com> <ybl8te8kbaq.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <142cad85-1e0e-b4c9-1561-ad590984739a@nthpermutation.com> <yblshcfhnai.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <1ca3daed-d521-0fcd-d1e7-eef2b781707b@nthpermutation.com> <ybl8te7fyks.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <26d61092-942a-16bc-e939-ed9400a17a29@nthpermutation.com> <19e3ce86-c797-0e88-e192-e82b936be579@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:55:56 -0800
In-Reply-To: <19e3ce86-c797-0e88-e192-e82b936be579@nthpermutation.com> (Michael StJohns's message of "Thu, 14 Dec 2017 22:26:13 -0500")
Message-ID: <yblshcby29f.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MC1CIysPepaSVQYHmxctWgAMaQ4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-08.txt
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 23:55:58 -0000

Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> writes:

> Below is a java program I wrote to model this stuff.  In the table,
> SF2 represents the number of clients that blew past twice the safety
> factor (for aR+aHD+aR), SF1 represents the number of clients that blew
> past the single safety factor.  OF is the number of clients using the
> activeRefreshOffset calculation that finished after the calculated
> interval (e.g. aR+aHD+aRO).  OF+s is the number of clients that
> finished after the activeRefreshOffset + safetyFactor (in the first
> table these are the same because of perfect responses).   In the
> second table, compare SF1 to OF+s - SF1 < OF+s suggesting that
> activeRefresh is a better choice that activeRefreshQuery for the third
> term of the equation.  You can try a lot of different combinations,
> but I haven't found any case where OF+s performs better that SF1.
>
> The difference between lastStart and lAddHoldBegin represents the
> retransmits after the first query.  The differences between
> lAddHoldEnd and lFinalQuery represent retransmits after the last
> normal query before the end of the add hold down time until a valid
> answer was received after the addHoldDown time expired.
>
> Feel free to twiddle with this.

Work bogged me down to able to write anything back so far.  Thanks for
the java code; I'll respond with the java*script* code I've been hacking
up at the same time:

https://www.isi.edu/~hardaker/projects/5011/


I didn't add the re-transmit time issue that your code takes into
account, but I did add a query drift that nicely shows one of your
concerns.  In particular, with various values of query drift (including
-1) you can reproduce the real world situation that you're worried
about, which is (as I've mentioned) an important one to call out.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI