[Doh] Do53 vs DoT vs DoH Page Load Performance Study at ANRW

Kevin Borgolte <kevin@iseclab.org> Fri, 19 July 2019 04:26 UTC

Return-Path: <kevin@iseclab.org>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56F1120043 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iseclab.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xbNbAzxHyERE for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (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 1AA701200FB for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id i189so13588202pfg.10 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iseclab.org; s=mail; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date :to:cc; bh=ScT9VsQbnaqDjxsE7l363Hj6HEtOvfUL5w4Oq9JNXsk=; b=OhjD20I+mf5gx87Z5f/PbAvJ/z3GQvabOkZsPpcgVR/2/ThvjUHI2xjiMIlwNl79Oq TW5R+oFLtLhspNR5f0I9RiYVQHW4FXi3ESHNJlo0zA0BpiFWfJML3+BO9vpb7rTSmj0m v5S0eKBzW+i7qtbgkcvVomZF/arByuskXMKCX4y2I0uzAUtZ7NU8nGb1pfhfa1jv+Btq 8nnHsVmNqoZ2xmZlpBc+Ke4BiHcxHmRh5h7qaT+i5HUbmMpxsfwv6sCDF1T00pchanou 5pa6gks92nk+w9YmQ47kwmeF6+RnScbTb+T6yA7DDYMcG4d2TGJnzbMJdEvwO+MZEbEv Cp3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:message-id:date:to:cc; bh=ScT9VsQbnaqDjxsE7l363Hj6HEtOvfUL5w4Oq9JNXsk=; b=iOS8gfJxs1aq7/iXZXrMeLE6VfnQw31nXZs/Ihpnj6gBeLYLhXaXUUfmun8uzTweXA FLaIv8qgtubFYCVxVPpJ3dEVMMBFOYd3A9/hF0oRaHRcy2GEShmPByV4dnLN3rcK7Mfj cJCetKu7N5ZhDQTxKdwQZW9xP3hZ6lhAh6Xjl8OfsSOqu7q5WvwMZzF847eFc6lz6TbB Ep8mZuUx8/ymJ6bTX6mD7KR4pg6e+xBSGJL4L0zSsa6bC7Sd2EFEwzB6TbVQ0XWgtyIh 9twPGPmEhGjDY+wiaFSCj7A7SB0PNiPfbF8ara/4sD9RBQ0D/7nGR/ue0EU9qKgNce6z RxzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVVXFS5az80BiYRWM/gOWhDATCi/yz2l4JhMWaEhUT1YFY8f75d KbqFAkGiGfekPFweET0Bqdn2og==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxTBaCz80lDt8Z/rdGjc8G5U9SJUgrIMc6rSzb7LQjAuY32NG/Z0c5Ef/HFaCbxT2hnsS6VpA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:9488:: with SMTP id s8mr56686761pjo.2.1563510404305; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g8sm14941328pgk.1.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-3C754381-F640-4A14-A8C3-6A4C1CC9341B"
From: Kevin Borgolte <kevin@iseclab.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <402781F4-33D8-4FD4-8087-FDCEFFF2D549@iseclab.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:26:40 +0800
To: add@ietf.org, doh@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, dprive@ietf.org
Cc: feamster@uchicago.edu, pschmitt@cs.princeton.edu, jordanah@princeton.edu, ahounsel@cs.princeton.edu
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16F203)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/IW7emUeBOBkL9eACAH2bVsdGvSg>
Subject: [Doh] Do53 vs DoT vs DoH Page Load Performance Study at ANRW
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 04:26:49 -0000

Hi all,

we recently did a study on Do53/DoT/DoH performance on webpage load times in Firefox, which we wanted to share with you. Austin Hounsel will give a talk about our work at ANRW on Monday. Paul Schmitt and I will also be around (myself only Monday afternoon and Tuesday) if you’d like to chat about it in person. The extended pre-print of our paper is available here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.08089

We looked at the effect of Do53/DoT/DoH on page load times because we figured they will be a more interesting measure than simple DNS resolution times. We also looked at simulated mobile connections (4G, lossy 4G, and 3G). We found that DoH is on par with Do53/DoT if your Internet connection is good, and worse if it is not. The potential for DoH seems to be largely push. ADD can also make sense, or at least an extended/updated OS API would.

We think there are two opportunities to improve Do53 and DoT: better wire format caching and partial responses combined with multiple questions. Part of the improvements and issues we discovered we later found out (by talking to some of you) were mentioned in early working group drafts, but they never made it into published RFCs or mailing list posts (which is where we looked initially). We hope you can help and explain the thoughts that went into these decisions 15 to 20 years ago. Maybe it even makes sense to revisit the ideas from back then combined with our ideas, considering how the Internet has evolved?

We‘d appreciate any feedback on our work. Please also feel free to reach out to us directly (in person or by email) if you have any insight or feedback you’d prefer not to post to the list.


P.S. Please excuse the posting to multiple lists, but all seem relevant.