Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Mon, 20 October 2014 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@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 C609D1ACEEF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 94sDpQqy_2BZ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22d.google.com (mail-qa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6F751ACEE5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id cm18so182279qab.32 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Dua4cPTVn7iA3fchuNDv7CLZOheY+8KaU2D7N7I+k+g=; b=sYJD6lTAh99W3l376vME6cwm5K+Jla3wH+ughqTLneRuSiUMbmJ7I6ttZCI4iPPHuN +aEPiZr9JYSSfsWGYWh0XBRx/azrpP2tdOwzQv5Z05+ZIBhscQ2MILI1WMZ9dhNZ46Te f4Kvv/NkvegX1nFMj+mvPw4Lg+sVC1LRzawiJBb4mbsURWHvrtp8OmiptH+F2qcnP7BJ yp+f5rqQzNCFyZzwc+zywJkONEkx5eWjgiQRYVqe+oirWQJdqq9pQdbUmwxCegi352bs hDSHi4BJfKIdw8FEgRp2g2k3XBPc+/tLpuZjKWoVGUVQbfMfqI5py4Ij6w1E5ealmBFZ gbKw==
X-Received: by 10.224.75.7 with SMTP id w7mr40665735qaj.26.1413840392476; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.130.47.99] (mobile-107-107-56-234.mycingular.net. [107.107.56.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q6sm8944345qas.16.2014.10.20.14.26.30 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12A405)
In-Reply-To: <5445796D.5070308@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:26:29 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <89A27B6B-CA69-4679-81C2-F68430A9685C@gmail.com>
References: <CA+nkc8AVaJtKGF1iUvTW50d9mwdsEf7SbGExV+Oq2vPmGu7P5w@mail.gmail.com> <5445796D.5070308@gmail.com>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/cq2AjLx4Zd5pF7qo5K33mKWZSfs
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization
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: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:26:39 -0000

If we are going there, I would want to know how common the configurations are.

There is zero additional overhead for www.example.com

Outside this list how common are hierarchies more than 4 levels deep in practice?

This isn't a functionality issue, it's purely performance. So I suggest a 5% minimum occurrence threshold for considering any corner cases. And made up examples don't count

Sent from my difference engine


> On Oct 20, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I think part of the work on qname-minimization will spend some time studying performance, as well as operational issues as Peter brought up.
> 
> It could very well be that what Peter pointed out will be true and there are operational issues that could cause acceptance.  But part of this work will be to understand and document these effects, correct?
> 
> tim
> (finally back home and catching up)
> 
> 
>> On 10/20/14 5:03 PM, Bob Harold wrote:
>> I support the idea of qname minimization, but I think there is a common
>> case where it will cause additional DNS round trips, slowing the
>> response and increasing the number of packets and queries the servers
>> must handle.
>> 
>> Consider “www.host.group.department.example.com
>> <http://www.host.group.department.example.com>” where the company’s
>> servers are authoritative for the zones:
>> 
>> example.com <http://example.com>
>> department.example.com <http://department.example.com>
>> group.department.example.com <http://group.department.example.com>
>> 
>> Without minimization (typical today):
>> 
>> 1. Query root for “www.host.group.department.example.com
>> <http://www.host.group.department.example.com>”, get list of “com” servers.
>> 2. Query a com server for “www.host.group.department.example.com
>> <http://www.host.group.department.example.com>”, get list of
>> “example.com <http://example.com>” servers.
>> 3. Query an example.com <http://example.com> server for
>> “www.host.group.department.example.com
>> <http://www.host.group.department.example.com>”, get answer.
>> 
>> With minimization:
>> 
>> 1. Query root for “com”, get list of “com” servers.
>> 2. Query a com server for “example.com <http://example.com>”, get list
>> of “example.com <http://example.com>” servers.
>> 3. Query an example.com <http://example.com> server for
>> “department.example.com <http://department.example.com>”, get list of
>> “department.example.com <http://department.example.com>” servers (which
>> happens to be the same as the list of “example.com <http://example.com>”
>> servers).
>> 4. Query a “department.example.com <http://department.example.com>”
>> server (likely the same server as step 3) for
>> “group.department.example.com <http://group.department.example.com>”,
>> get list of “group.department.example.com
>> <http://group.department.example.com>” servers.
>> 5. Query a “group.department.example.com
>> <http://group.department.example.com>” server for
>> “host.group.example.com <http://host.group.example.com>”, get probably
>> just an A and/or AAAA record, indicating there is no zone cut at that level.
>> 6. Query a “group.department.example.com
>> <http://group.department.example.com>” server for
>> “www.host.group.department.example.com
>> <http://www.host.group.department.example.com>”, get answer.
>> 
>> Note that it takes twice as many queries, and each depends on the
>> previous, so it is twice as many round trips.
>> 
>> I realize that caching will reduce the extra queries in many cases, but
>> can we estimate the impact of this somehow, to determine if it is
>> significant?
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Bob Harold
>> 
>> DNS hostmaster, University of Michigan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop