IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 18 August 2017 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D480413218C for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 brwth88Sq0Aw for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22b.google.com (mail-qt0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22b]) (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 A3B2B132402 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id b4so6767037qta.1 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=fwf90+cYNwHzN6EvUYTEp1p5a7i48lCPTI8AfbwN4Zo=; b=czYRYVh1wHqgoHOxZjBgkAFBOkb7Q71/isvKh3yFGpvJZA831C27CSjVrwcwSxEXmM cU1rdJqmt77PVg2NtevL4Ru27D3QfqDQZuOwoYu3Ar9D9laKXHtdQ2sEcWeztbE24DP/ 7RM+dtAUgN7V6B785aaQ5JBtUnDRvnv84pbKp/D0KOO/54jf5Q1HcoiLii848c6TwCjQ p7KTM9KjX//7Gd3awpv9WB95K2Odk0le7YZZkTq1pUTtnl737+wwmM5mIUM0dz4uowAB wEetlrRNJLrc+4B4rrojEl46+dNWLMtZgu/UX/2WxTZMZFYb2Oh2iiWhQJIpiQNIUtOt B/Lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=fwf90+cYNwHzN6EvUYTEp1p5a7i48lCPTI8AfbwN4Zo=; b=ViCnjZsWbL6M1IE21H3A09mDkuhPq7BLoEHMFTy3O4bzDWskMle9QNXK4NBcBzYm02 VJ2SHkxi2VrJ7qdnmyhCZUXDide8AAWbS8z261Z6V6UGtdVc9XuxqSM6O7i+2N4PTd3j /oUirMgOdcVYlrZg83xCatQSeq0AaCZfRYl513TI57JCyZe7EPaWYQxhlIGJG/SRMStN r5Bb8JVbjR1gYPqSAsn5HHCg2+O6adOq2WwyMmk3nrQZl5UybwG/qQoI/oID44LCGo4k bIPAF4UdqQ3XFixMJ5uB35vauiym3LZognzs9TbWhXTFzdVLNKJBZBKH0u7BomY5xzvM /OnA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5hOCl9vaIpIiHSmdbb7lPC/9E8opU7vCJeEfapNfbax92JCwVee Fw38bcVyMZnHzfebzQVypQ==
X-Received: by 10.237.60.104 with SMTP id u37mr7880096qte.83.1503066660675; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cavall.ether.lede.home (c-24-60-163-103.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.60.163.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b52sm3978943qta.88.2017.08.18.07.30.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <65C445C6-F288-4131-8B32-838AA0FB9809@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5CD107F8-9E47-4021-AD19-0E13B52CB318"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:30:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8760dl9psm.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
References: <87fuctxdrc.fsf@toke.dk> <FB44A942-9DE3-4CE6-88C5-402B20756462@fugue.com> <877ey4y62g.fsf@toke.dk> <6DF8489E-D780-4E4C-A132-31EEF8285BB7@fugue.com> <874lt8xv9j.fsf@toke.dk> <3DE50D7C-53BF-4758-8DED-A2CA89C8ABE7@fugue.com> <871soby776.fsf@toke.dk> <769C4508-BB58-4BCB-A3CE-3657FB43A8AA@fugue.com> <87k223jjdg.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CAPt1N1=rb-pvddpEDWD9AscGTs=TsU5bo7tywn9Gj1tsSdAZKQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170817201054.GN45648@Space.Net> <C45236E5-ABAB-4F33-8256-64EFB834E54F@fugue.com> <8760dl9psm.wl-jch@irif.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/1pXJxvM0sOqoEOW3SOhsZ0uSkiE>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:31:05 -0000

El 18 ag 2017, a les 5:40, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> va escriure:
> If the fast connection's DNS server replies after a delay or not at all,
> and the slow connection's DNS server replies in a timely manner, using
> a smart resolver across all the available DNS servers will improve latenc

Yes, but if your fast connection is lossy, it's not fast.   Lossy looks like congestion, so TCP slows down.   There's nothing we can do in the resolver to fix this.   You want less complexity, but to successfully determine which link is the right one to use at the network level is a very hard problem, much harder than anything we are talking about here.   It might be an interesting research topic, but it doesn't make sense for you to raise it as an argument in favor of one or another options for configuring resolvers.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email