Re: [DNSOP] "Optimization" in draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
>
>> Em 05/01/2015, à(s) 14:33:000, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> escreveu:
>>
>> On Jan 4, 2015, at 12:13 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
>>>>> "Sending the full qname to the authoritative name server is a
>>>>> tradition, not a protocol requirment."
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd actually call it an optimization, not a tradition.
>>>>
>>>> In many cases, sending the full qname degrades performance so I would
>>>> not call it an optimization.
>>>
>>> If there are cases in which sending the full QNAME degrades performance, it might be useful to document them in the draft (off the top of my head, I can't imagine non-broken cases where that would be true, but I haven't thought about it too long).
>>>
>>> The reason I'd call it an optimization is that in the case where a server is authoritative for multiple layers of hierarchy, sending the full QNAME allows that server to bypass the referrals for all intermediate layers of hierarchy and simply respond to the depth it knows.  If QNAME minimization is applied, that shortcut isn't possible.
>>
>> +1 to David's comment. I have always heard that sending the full name was an optimization for authoritative severs that spanned more than one level, and that such servers were common in "the early days". It is worth pointing this out in this draft, and to also say that that situation may be much less common now than it was in antiquity.
>
>
> I can point to 25 million domain names that currently benefit from such optimization in .br and .uk alone, probably more if you add other TLDs that register on the 3rd level.

I'm sorry, but I think that that gives somewhat of a false impression
- while there may be many millions of names of the form foo.bar.co.uk,
if only takes one query to get that into the cache for 48h[0].

So, what you say is technically true (which is, of course, the best
kind of true), it overpaints the effect.

W

[0]: or until the recursive gets bored, or runs out of cache, or
restarted, or...

>
>
> Rubens
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf