Re: [DNSOP] Minimum viable ANAME

Paul Vixie <> Mon, 05 November 2018 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE01F127333 for <>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 19:06:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bOtSJEFAll8d for <>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 19:06:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7952B126BED for <>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 19:06:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:8de1:7fa:37ed:8cc4] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:8de1:7fa:37ed:8cc4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 245B2892C6; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 03:06:56 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 19:06:56 -0800
From: Paul Vixie <>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.25 (Windows/20180328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Andrews <>
CC: Ray Bellis <>,
References: <20180919201401.8E0C220051382A@ary.qy> <> <20180920061343.GA754@jurassic> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Minimum viable ANAME
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 03:06:58 -0000

Mark Andrews wrote:
>> On 4 Nov 2018, at 7:01 pm, Paul Vixie<>  wrote:
>> that would be a mistake. we are hitting for average here not power
>> -- the behaviour to optimize for is whatever's most common. if the
>> SRV is used, the AAAA or A RRsets will be fetched, and thus cached.
>> if the SRV is only used once, that caching effort will be wasted.
>> if the SRV is used many times, then the dominant use case will be
>> that the additional data is found in cache because the client
>> caused this to be so.
> The main objection to SRV was the double RTT to the recursive server.
> Fetching the address records before returning will speed up the sites
> that are not talked to regularly and will not slow down the sites
> that are talked to regularly as the values will already be in cache.

i'll try again differently. such a fetch would add logic branches and 
state and network information, to no purpose whatsoever.

if the stub who asked the SRV question does not receive the addresses it 
needs in additional data, it will query for them. that will put those 
addresses in cache, so that on subsequent same-SRV questions, it will be 

if the SRV is never fetched again, then there's no win to be had.

popular SRV answers will be overwhelmingly dominated by the second and 
subsequent responses, which will all include the additional data.

a recursive should only fetch what it needs for its own operations, so 
for example if it knows an NS RR but not the corresponding AAAA or A RR, 
it can fetch those. and for qname minimization it can make the requisite 
diagnostic queries. but it should NOT fetch just because it lacks 
additional data. the stubs should cause those fetches.

P Vixie