Re: [DNSOP] Aggressive NSEC statistics
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sat, 17 December 2016 20:32 UTC
Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4FDB129A75 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:32:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 KdSuaE_x44Na for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:32:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22e.google.com (mail-lf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACF40129588 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id c13so30126514lfg.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:32:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wKHGTcLI6YxFNltnZrhH5J+HQ9njVoeCI1cErCeSrro=; b=cMbAzFUxyc/z65weORAreox6/2GXBhE2khqTO2xj0F6Kzn4Mfcx7RMbuh0lXR/Eov0 a2T127QUsl41oT7eEFwucm0lf30DBmJOlibmjwP68VV276R3REaRy+1VTog9lsNXTmHY vrpQdYD0YRLWxr8nSJXHUYXFuL6/HaNPR3051Z1PAIoM9Hp/O39LweAuoBad8whpljIP VcQOip3jkkHmqVyEd6twle4CU5cNA9lK5bWlmWYfVXKJhGhhy6kRAVQDwET+aNU5cnFj odqyfkXD29C685IcGWbYjDrjmgZtv2O11GQXSkBfNbARO1YlSR7BqSwnjbAFuTeP+o+L mXBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wKHGTcLI6YxFNltnZrhH5J+HQ9njVoeCI1cErCeSrro=; b=l18djLEf7I/GTPRRWpSxXqUHW+cnVGqokyC+sjBhqerJ10thmwsU4FC0mrpf4X4MVG hIwrDoQHwDClpTMtxevrlQKB306jeU/Rv5XjZdN1pXTKEEV9UO/bfvEE5BLj2UhA4iX1 wotY+U3LiOAUzL0yOEcFvcaYnD90jHeUnSjCtBMy0VupaJxT5svEeNsGihGZXYR+MLNC AgIZNERbB8824s5dDvSwftpRvFQM5kWdhS3MaAjbW0e3QbJnv0aaSYFSu9CyN27GnrZM RCxxUL6AzqTJn9F3RwxKauzdYQp7wM4CnPkkym6hmsGYl4+JI2u+zfEF7bPOczkbGQ1o +FqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKntzserm7/5JAl/cvT2m6h6H3WeKtTNpUXhFBv7Zo6zc392pQb8YeuaTJMRr1ZpSbHSqTgIrn7efgADg==
X-Received: by 10.25.37.80 with SMTP id l77mr880351lfl.152.1482006734862; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:32:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.165.8 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:32:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.165.8 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:32:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:32:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1mykGTaGoUgMdXaQRR6tcMq676yML2UCK+fHui7dbmEVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114102d8fc93860543e094ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rb1fIEtZceXJb6_oasO9nSUZFRs>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Aggressive NSEC statistics
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:32:19 -0000
We are deep down a rathole here. If this is worthy of discussion, which I don't dispute, it is probably better discussed under a different heading. On Dec 17, 2016 3:17 PM, "william manning" <chinese.apricot@gmail.com> wrote: David, it would seem that fact-driven processes might serve the operational ecosystem better than SWAG, don't you agree? Warren, do you have, even antecdotal data on the impact of aggressive NSEC and traffic to the roots, that would inform this discussion (maybe). At least it would give the root operators a heads up that they were, once again, being asked to backstop issues that should be handled elsewhere. /Wm On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 11:42 AM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote: > Bill, > > On Dec 17, 2016, at 11:36 AM, william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Is there any public data to support the presumptions of excess capacity > at the roots and the impact of NSEC aggressive use on the DNS? > > Warren provided some interesting anecdotes at the last IEPG, but I'm > unaware of any formal modeling. > > > I know that in the previous century, punting on operational impact by > guessing about outcomes was common. I thought the IETF had moved away > from SWAG and was working toward a more disciplined and fact based process > for making changes. > > I make no comment on what the IETF has moved towards or away from. > > Regards, > -drc > (speaking only for myself) > > > > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
- Re: [DNSOP] Aggressive NSEC statistics Ted Lemon