IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-04

Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk> Mon, 15 September 2014 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
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 545B11A068E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 04:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652] autolearn=ham
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 JXOyRbhm0T0J for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 04:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A95A1A0B0A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 04:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:55005) by ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:cet1) id 1XTUX9-0004Zr-EX (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:33:27 +0100
Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:cet1) id 1XTUX9-0000Z6-EA (Exim 4.72) (return-path <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:33:27 +0100
Received: from [131.111.56.28] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 15 Sep 2014 12:33:27 +0100
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:33:27 +0100
From: Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk>
To: Hosnieh Rafiee <hosnieh.rafiee@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.5.1409151233270.14435@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <814D0BFB77D95844A01CA29B44CBF8A7A2C341@lhreml513-mbb.china.huawei.com>
References: <814D0BFB77D95844A01CA29B44CBF8A7A2C341@lhreml513-mbb.china.huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Sender: Chris Thompson <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XdORV9Ob8sbsjW2lDUzkTA9BFig
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-04
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cet1@cam.ac.uk
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: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:33:32 -0000

On Sep 12 2014, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:

>Section 3.3 
>IPv6 address is 16 octets (bytes) and IPv4 is 4 octets (bytes)
>
>Why the combination of 13 root servers IP4 and IPv6 is  13 * (16 + 28) == 572?
>What else you considered in the calculation so that it is 28 octets ?

Presumably

  2 octets for a maximally compressed name (as it has already occurred
           in the NS RRset)
  2 octets for the type
  2 octets for the class
  4 octets for the TTL
  2 octets for the RDATA length field

for a 12-octet overhead. Maybe a reference to RFC 1035 section 3.2.1
is needed to clarify? (although this 12-octet minimum overhead is
rather "well known")

-- 
Chris Thompson               University of Cambridge Information Services,
Email: cet1@uis.cam.ac.uk    Roger Needham Building, 7 JJ Thomson Avenue,
Phone: +44 1223 334715       Cambridge CB3 0RB, United Kingdom.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email