Re: [Doh] DoT and DoH at Cambridge

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 06 September 2018 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837E3130E2D for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 05:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 NfY7L4Eih13H for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 05:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B2EE130E0E for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 05:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:38876) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1fxtrQ-000NfW-07 (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 06 Sep 2018 13:58:12 +0100
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 13:58:11 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
cc: doh@ietf.org, Erik Kline <ek=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180906114152.GB13373@server.ds9a.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1809061334470.5965@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1809061011520.5965@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAAedzxpM=+TtH0wEyePWXLFKtgeFxkYpYyvCjz+aeG6PLrzV2g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1809061116410.5965@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20180906114152.GB13373@server.ds9a.nl>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/MIwwsET1WKcINEXN-I5n-uuTOG0>
Subject: Re: [Doh] DoT and DoH at Cambridge
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: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 12:58:17 -0000

bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this experiment, I'd been hoping someone would run it! Of
> specific interest in terms of CPU sizing is how long the TLS connection
> stays open, if and how it resumes the TLS connection later on and perhaps
> what algorithms you see in use.

I have not done ANY tuning of this setup - defaults across the board on
nginx, and on BIND I have only increased the max concurrent `tcp-clients`
limit (or rather, I did that 4 years ago). I'm kind of winging it and
waiting to see how it grows :-)

With my setup (nginx as a TLS proxy) BIND controls the TCP session times
which in turn controls TLS session times; by default its idle timeout is
30s which is probably why that is a common session lifetime. I'm seeing a
good amount of session reuse, often lots of queries on the same
connection. Nicely done, Android :-)

Everyone is using TLS/1.2 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384.
I have configured nginx to use the "modern" TLS profile from
https://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl-config-generator/

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Faeroes, Southeast Iceland: Easterly or northeasterly 4 or 5, increasing 6 at
times. Slight or moderate. Rain or showers. Good, occasionally poor.