Re: [Doh] [dns-privacy] [DNSOP] Do53 vs DoT vs DoH Page Load Performance Study at ANRW

Puneet Sood <> Sun, 21 July 2019 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22EF9120141 for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 13:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qC6gY3zGl3pi for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 13:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15DE120143 for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 13:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a14so14306673ybm.11 for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 13:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ap9z8tN29nhp8ZXJLRDW4HcOWg5FnscBjlQam/S43Rc=; b=SZNmI14bKycz6JVh7biOzvVkN4hf7jZfdKLhThc9ry+zS9gG+baHqgrhAMAhVi+GAI fXz5rWnouX1x07YfwCxfRkV38a604tHOvljWWA2bD/vbSdsg10MGfSthCyQLObgAUQ/V Z6oWClYgSbS0JwfiEh+u8Sx/GawvfJPS42a8sz6XWvSF2L0k9V+EJlbVRe8gKfDedJKJ mgBhrLXiQ9PwodBN5hfwmyyg4nyYqqZlrJaSmtC+G/zu0lYKpTEg3tpSCOWZ/7MNUBpk qi9RbBRYPjEK6H7YVhPc/DbrC78KXQs24J6O46VyNGv/E8t/egIHuQGFGYQLmsE7k4dd wMnw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ap9z8tN29nhp8ZXJLRDW4HcOWg5FnscBjlQam/S43Rc=; b=WZsAShXCyJqP52EVFgF1fMbvd3mGA2cvERzt2XfchmX1rLLukB2ZqzMDBEZxQkSyEW BI4A+17DM/KdcIp281l2A7wcM1ZKrw/Dt+NxPpbQ3OOXCeuXuWHKP16jdhb8zkG8+6n2 CN+1eta46wZRABg4Ptva7x1rmIPW8D8gWjm+EgkOY5XgNWLZwDyJ/VeosDbSnB/6PCrX 6hqYIW3SZO56lRghy/bICX8zGRs5p0HmkiIuPV68uLv4l6/zC8Svh1KTJdlz5QGojPXS Z2FKi5vKloJFwnlvnTUl6XYduq11UPL14H+fCmYj6C7sZVN/JlMis0bizmotOUS+goFd swug==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXGbup5CvyJeDzgGA4/PiLyxD9FdWXjEpyDfkrVRF0/QrZLWeWL pdcWcEE8FzLUlR2DFkUSGmigPEbMWCV/b8u1VP9UfA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwGAWqfYbLvM8YO51NxMsLw1SaT9POywsXyd2j2xXVWd1R4S+ofZZ16imlhGyt9wanHUv8d0Sx7HDOj1etM8A4=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:4585:: with SMTP id s127mr36737162yba.139.1563740797325; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 13:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Puneet Sood <>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 16:26:24 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Kevin Borgolte <>
Cc: Rob Sayre <>, DoH WG <>,, dnsop WG <>,,,,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 18:55:08 -0700
Subject: Re: [Doh] [dns-privacy] [DNSOP] Do53 vs DoT vs DoH Page Load Performance Study at ANRW
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 20:26:56 -0000

Thanks for sharing the results of your work. It will be great to have
the software available so others can run the experiments from other

When looking at the page load results the CDF graphs comparing the
various services are very useful to see the relative performance of
different services. However I could not find the range of time values
for the page loads in the experiment. Basically what percentage of the
page load time variation was related to DNS?

Note: For Google DoH, we will be reviewing our implementation for
latency. BTW we have launched our production RFC 8484 DoH service
recently at
It will be great if you can update your software to use this endpoint.

* The experiment was run from Princeton, New Jersey in Northeast US.
The location is in a very well connected part of the world between
network peering points in NYC and Washington DC. You will not see much
difference (due to network latency) between the cloud providers and
the default (local) Do53. Running the experiment from locations which
are further away from cloud providers would provide another
interesting set of data.

* Conclusion on benefit (or lack) of ECS.
Did the page load measurements include content that would benefit from
proximity to the end user, e.g. streaming videos or large downloads?
This kind of content benefits from ECS when the resolver is further
away from the client.


On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 1:42 AM Kevin Borgolte <>; wrote:
> > This paper looks interesting. Is the software used in the paper published?
> Thanks! The code isn’t open source yet, but we will make it public alongside the Docker setup we used for running it. Not sure when that is going to happen exactly though.
> > Or, at least, is the test page set published? I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it seems like the page set would be relevant if the paper tests page load time.
> The list of websites is attached. It is extracted from the top 1,000 and 99,000 to 100,000 of a Tranco list.
> Best,
> Kevin
> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list