IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Mon, 20 October 2014 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 E5CB61ACEF4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.282
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.282 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 S0FFArYQafrW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ss.vix.su (ss.vix.su [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cb::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 382251ACEE6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2600:1003:b128:59a0:6c3f:6eb5:e8da:568e] (unknown [IPv6:2600:1003:b128:59a0:6c3f:6eb5:e8da:568e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ss.vix.su (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B37E6EBCAC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:30:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@redbarn.org)
Message-ID: <54457EE3.9070609@redbarn.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:30:11 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Windows/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <CA+nkc8AVaJtKGF1iUvTW50d9mwdsEf7SbGExV+Oq2vPmGu7P5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+nkc8AVaJtKGF1iUvTW50d9mwdsEf7SbGExV+Oq2vPmGu7P5w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050406060500090706060401"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/pB5_FsNzjjBXmXBCZvlvtG0h9o4
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 21:30:16 -0000

there's a cart/horse proble in this thread.

right now we're arguing whether to adopt it.

if we adopt it then its goods and bads will become relevant.

that said:

> Bob Harold <mailto:rharolde@umich.edu>
> Monday, October 20, 2014 2:03 PM
>
> 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.
>

i argue that caching will equalize these logic paths over a very short
stretch of wall time.

-- 
Paul Vixie

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status