Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

Status Quo  is good for ipv4 to ipv6 migration.

Totally agree with william on PUSH/PULL.

1. Hotest internet service's RDATA always exists in recursive dns cache,
PUSH is not speed up much except hit-miss. ( recursive -> authority )

2. clients known what they want, PULL & prefething is Ockham's Razor. (
stub -> recursive )

Imagine that  if someone visits  serv-a.xxx.com and  serv-b.xxx.com.
If serv-a.xxx.com has the same associate PUSH RRDATA with serv-b.xxx.com,
for example css.xxx.com, image.xxx.com, js.xxx.com, etc.
Dumplicate response and increase the DDoS risk (abuse use).

william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>于2016年8月17日周三 下午6:59写道：

> from an attacker POV, I would strongly support PUSH, as it would increase
> DDoS effectiveness. The performance enhancement seems to be based on some
> presumptions about servers retaining residual knowledge of the resolver
> behaviours.
> PULL minimizes the attack surface.  wrt cache coherence and delay, I think
> the resolver is closer to the APPs using the data and so may be in a batter
> place to understand what is and will be needed.  Those needs can be met
> with prefetching/caching, which mitigate the RTT/delay issues.
> Status Quo - if it was good enough for Phil Almquist, it's good enough for
> me! :)
>
> /Wm
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:32 PM, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > All of these documents are attempting to solve a larger problem in
>> different
>> > ways. The end result is "Return Associated Answer" to the client.
>> >
>> > The question is starting to coalesce around these two premises:
>> >
>> > - Do we want to Server to PUSH any or all Associated Answers, or
>>
>> This option reduces effective RTT delay. It has the most performace
>> improvement in DNS delay reduction, assuming the extra payload is
>> determined to be needed eg flags, or heuristical analysis of client
>> behaviour.
>>
>> Its cost is additional data on the server->client path. Personally, I
>> think this is the best option and the one most likely to increase
>> cache coherence, timeliness, and reduce delay in the DNS phase.
>>
>> >
>> > - Do we want the Client to PULL any or all Associated Answers, or
>>
>> This minimizes traffic. Otherwise, it maximises delay if subsequent
>> query is needed. I would suggest that a client option or flag to
>> request this behaviour is plausible if PUSH is the norm.
>>
>> >
>> > - Do we want the Status Quo?
>>
>> This seems the safest option and the most inherently boring, and
>> pointless. Why are we here if we think the best bet is the status quo?
>> Down down, deeper and down...
>>
>> -G
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-- 

Best Regards

Pan Lanlan

+86 186 9834 2356