Re: [DNSOP] "Optimization" in draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

Does anyone have actual data on how common it is, so we can make an
informed decision?

I would expect "www.something..." to be in the same zone as "something..."
in most cases, so I think it is actually very common to have more than one
level on the same DNS.

-- 
Bob Harold
hostmaster, UMnet, ITcom
Information and Technology Services (ITS)
rharolde@umich.edu
734-647-6524 desk

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2015, at 12:13 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> >>> "Sending the full qname to the authoritative name server is a
> >>> tradition, not a protocol requirment."
> >>>
> >>> I'd actually call it an optimization, not a tradition.
> >>
> >> In many cases, sending the full qname degrades performance so I would
> >> not call it an optimization.
> >
> > If there are cases in which sending the full QNAME degrades performance,
> it might be useful to document them in the draft (off the top of my head, I
> can't imagine non-broken cases where that would be true, but I haven't
> thought about it too long).
> >
> > The reason I'd call it an optimization is that in the case where a
> server is authoritative for multiple layers of hierarchy, sending the full
> QNAME allows that server to bypass the referrals for all intermediate
> layers of hierarchy and simply respond to the depth it knows.  If QNAME
> minimization is applied, that shortcut isn't possible.
>
> +1 to David's comment. I have always heard that sending the full name was
> an optimization for authoritative severs that spanned more than one level,
> and that such servers were common in "the early days". It is worth pointing
> this out in this draft, and to also say that that situation may be much
> less common now than it was in antiquity.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>