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

william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com> Wed, 17 August 2016 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <chinese.apricot@gmail.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 155F712D17B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.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 SZhtTP3VqRcC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (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 C933C12D0A5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id b62so132331199iod.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=i0HPrxmS4jtDmEwHWg9XwfWh8lh82cDF+hzs1XDNY9U=; b=pMAuwpdOAMM/lhife2rNDjfFwCTJ1St1p16v53PR9vnuIBQkHEw0VCDmYBZdbi9JgW Mi5PsLCD6lC1CAjxAFo6m4ZGxrQKv8T98HB2wO8UaFliLdDCdJxa5m8A9kUqMg3poHXO RJNYkmU7TdAgmEbaKoeAe5S4CUHyKpiQBft/rjcb+zs7UmgKea1TITtOj63c1IwFpfTN +wcFnh1xZnzem7SgPjTAxo4nIeGASaTlaeZcjnYRiCPxFeQ2DorzXkp0grntWnz9Bogg ObHggCxmfX5wXc8mea0AEAG8cWdSVcAZ7ELYYm+MiP1olCvPp79qeF9k2ofiCzfxGnm8 XUwQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=i0HPrxmS4jtDmEwHWg9XwfWh8lh82cDF+hzs1XDNY9U=; b=HQDMHPltQk9/tPWC9LT/NjUiCl/h1y90efVZSHlZ0f48L/cAEZfup+ywG3vuRRv24p sA+M3T329YmSgojHb6lGcWz9DgF+gu3RnFBlCQVBRL3fJCypbggedvuFFTAvhC83jApt qh2ekay/fjPTpJpnXOcKIt4tUNOza0HlvSuoGplQ+nb+/T19wNwiQ2UlepOcf5bLg+uQ MsvRU37ROt5IKBAUL6PaGQVTxPrdJ1gS+zhnQXNLlIdydO3HBAAgu/mlnxCiisuNqp8X PfFnjIU/2Gu7UBwwX/7FG626y+mwZ9cODFy8Xsh62SSVgqn2cDrGOY2Hu4Kd0JZAFvHC YyUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvFntg58NuAgoHCl6quxOzoYej8tWb+tFd4V1ptoFINQG9erEPkr3KX9K5QVBCfUa5/G2sk5QN7kkrnxw==
X-Received: by 10.107.23.66 with SMTP id 63mr51262359iox.169.1471431542027; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.35.213 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn22oyjU3PKzU=5tWuRwLi8nm-WZJ2DSFJi8yDnqwY-fpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <665d8bd3-4229-eb98-1688-2460dcb943b6@gmail.com> <CAKr6gn22oyjU3PKzU=5tWuRwLi8nm-WZJ2DSFJi8yDnqwY-fpQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:59:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CACfw2hiKqa11KGuwWJgVf+xrm+QtU2AhDU0hQJybxNao5NkX4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05c23e5fb906053a425acf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/t_p7VPqumxksDogtXdsJT7jtg88>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts
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: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:59:09 -0000

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
>