Re: [DNSOP] my lone hum against draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses

Sorry, this sort of response to queries.

On Jul 19, 2016 10:14, "Matthew Pounsett" <matt@conundrum.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 19 July 2016 at 09:46, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought the proposal specifically excluded support for this sort of
>> query in any case other than for queries from authoritative servers.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean about "this sort of query".    There wouldn't
> be any special query sent to recursives.  The response from recursives
> could include the additional records called for by the EXTRA records cached
> when the authoritative was queried.  I don't see anything about that being
> prohibited in the draft... in fact I see no reason for § 6 if it was
> prohibited.  There'd be no reason for recursives to ever receive the EXTRA
> records themselves.
>
>
>
>> On Jul 19, 2016 09:37, "Matthew Pounsett" <matt@conundrum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 July 2016 at 09:19, Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moin!
>>>>
>>>> On 19 Jul 2016, at 9:00, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Jul 19, 2016 8:36 AM, "Ralf Weber" <dns@fl1ger.de> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Except that if you have a decent size and hot Cache with refreshing
>>>> >> these records will be in there anyway. IMHO you gained nothing, but I
>>>> >> agree with Jim Reid that it would be good to have data on this.
>>>> >
>>>> > Nothing except some DNS round trips.
>>>> > How could that matter though?
>>>> As said I don't believe we have additional round trips between the
>>>> recursive and the authoritative server in most of the cases. That is
>>>> what we need data for though. DNS and applications that use DNS have
>>>> unbelievable levels of caching. So while this all might apply to you
>>>> if you run your own resolver just for you, it's not the case in big
>>>> cache deployments most people use (be it their ISP or some big public
>>>> resolver).
>>>>
>>>> While I tend to agree that the optimization gain between the recursive
>>> and authoritative server is probably  minimal, the potential gain between
>>> the recursive and the stub is huge.  Other than the fact that the
>>> explanation focuses on the authoritative, I don't see any reason this needs
>>> to be limited to recursive->authoritative conversations.  Indeed, with the
>>> OPT signalling a recursive could obtain the EXTRA records and provide the
>>> same optimized answers to stubs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DNSOP mailing list
>>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>>
>>>
>