IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-00

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 08 January 2015 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 EC06F1A0378 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:36:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 HCFQNI4VasvE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8780F1A014A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k11so4282116wes.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:36:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=j/y53AlgUAmZu4gFtT9xpKjuBN4zJUly2J7vQlthgUI=; b=02T7T5IUqKXC0e+RopNyjKSphbOgblzAvz0nsBilzCaH75gR2r5++pMITIAyZXBZV8 3uFeOpBMoxRtjNsSJmgtIhRvj0RGbQq+dXl+pOo9ZaNh2p6VIgjNV3Aaedlji8LEyFfC PVStIaSMxSmwPKIAowpA+tjHkyuidT6F2l+Eyzf7s2giH2J5dIoIMsQ+4gL1Vh+Xm1Fz 73np6fSHvdCnVCJA68GekXyrOcwfuwX+UkQ9yjpTqt4xx42pynYTptpbswSVqleU6Uh7 2ty6gsqsVFwDvyE7WIVAbzZjsREhd6o1nW29N5YpvcovI+EACWQ6bNhjylilOm9c9/Mw xZAA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.7.201 with SMTP id l9mr62679077wia.80.1420745791250; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:36:31 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.44.66 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:36:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqdp_Z=1PsfBD7bj1DCh+uV-nKt4ViPepN+yYVfCjzvShQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJE_bqeY3g7s4HN=5XpoT5Z=4FqgRRTrmOXDSA_0sidWOZ5jiQ@mail.gmail.com> <54AE999C.1000404@nlnetlabs.nl> <CAJE_bqdp_Z=1PsfBD7bj1DCh+uV-nKt4ViPepN+yYVfCjzvShQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:36:31 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AoLObUFrSl21bep8vUmGFvQnQoQ
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqcAJ=pWYBGnew3NAJfNvOMxGNK-uT7LeLKo4HTe5Eip+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Yuri Schaeffer <yuri@nlnetlabs.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/OPYw0W410XBFmokDEHeiB_-Jxx4>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-00
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: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:36:34 -0000

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:58 AM, <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:

> - Using my server side configuration example of 2001:db8::/32 and
>   2001:db8:2::/48 again.  With this definition of SCOPE and caching
>   behavior at the Recursive Server, the Recursive Server would have
>   to cache separate responses for all of the 64K prefixes that match
>   2001:db8::/48.

Correction: I realized I was wrong here...the Recursive Server would
*only* have to cache 17 prefixes:
2001:db8:8000::/33
2001:db8:4000::/34
...
2001:db8:0004::/46
2001:db8:0000::/47
2001:db8:0002::/48
2001:db8:0003::/48

This still seems to be costly compared to just caching the matched
prefix (at the cost of having suboptimal cases), but maybe it's
marginal based on the fact that the Recursive Server would require a
lot of cache anyway.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status