Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 07 July 2008 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274F93A6A73; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6653A6A74 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.380, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q2NxS9ZDYw80 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 207F03A69ED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KFuqB-0000cr-0y; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:49:31 -0400
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:49:30 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Message-ID: <F8F3EE48494D3E281D901830@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <20080707171926.28210.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20080707171926.28210.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


--On Monday, 07 July, 2008 17:19 +0000 John Levine
<johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

>...
> * The proportion of invalid traffic, i.e., DNS pollution,
> hitting the   roots is still high, over 99% of the queries
> should not even be sent   to the root servers. We found an
> extremely strong correlation both   years: the higher the
> query rate of a client, the lower the fraction   of valid
> queries.
> 
> That suggests that if the legit traffic increased by an order
> of magnitude, it would still be down in the noise compared to
> the junk. Conversely, if root server traffic is an issue,
> getting networks to clean up their DNS traffic would be much
> more effective than limiting the number of TLDs.
> 
> http://www.caida.org/research/dns/roottraffic/comparison06_07.
> xml

John,

While I find this interesting, I don't see much logical or
statistical justification for the belief that, if one increased
(by a lot) the number of TLDs, the amount of "invalid" traffic
would remain roughly constant, rather than increasing the
multiplier.  

And, of course, two of the ways of having "networks [to] clean
up their DNS traffic" depend on local caching of the root zone
(see previous note) and filtering out root queries for
implausible domains.  Both of those are facilitated by smaller
root zones and impeded by very large ones.

    john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf