Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

[Jeroen Massar <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 13:14 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Peter Dambier wrote:
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
> > 
> >> Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 update,
> >>> I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical issue with the
> >>> LLMNR specification during this IETF LC.  If you (or anyone else) has
> >>> intended to raise a blocking technical issue, either with LLMNR itself
> >>> or with its ability to coexist with mDNS, please make that clearer to
> >>> me.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > Sorry I overlooked this:
> > 
> > I dont count 25% of the root server traffic a minor issue.
> 
> Can you point to publicly available data about the rate of .local
> queries to *all* the root servers (including the anycast servers)?

Check for only "K": http://k.root-servers.org/index.html#stats
Interresting one here is NXDOMAIN responses:
http://k.root-servers.org/stats/linx/xstats_SNXD-all.html
(note, that is only the LINX node)
It is a large part of the traffic and annoying, 0.763 k out of 2116 k
queries/sec. Interrestingly that since about June it started to decline
which could be because these real root-servers
(http://www.root-servers.org/) also have a project called AS112
(http://www.as112.net), which takes care of at least the reverse trees
for RFC1918 space.

For instance, the Italian node (http://frejus.itgate.net/as112/), run by
ITGate is seeing about 100 queries per second for their point of view.
The RIPE one (http://www.ripe.net/as112/) in Amsterdam does about 300
queries/s so it really depends on ones point of view.

For real details I suggest one to ask either Olaf Kolkman or Daniel
Karrenberg (both cc'd so they will not skip this message ;) or other
root-server operators who can shed way more light on this subject.

In short: having something query for known bogus domains is bad and
hurts the root-servers. It can be limited a bit, but not much.

Additional note: Making zones 'up' and making an 'alternate root' causes
that sometimes these zones leak into the real root, where they don't
exist. Eg this happens in misconfiguration cases or people publishing
the alternate root DNS names, which don't exist for the rest of the
world. That said having an alterante root is more disruptive than having
LLMNR.

Greets,
 Jeroen

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf