Re: [Inip-discuss] Innovation in DNS

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 23 August 2016 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: inip-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: inip-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB02A12D5AE for <inip-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:35:59 -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] 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 4hLyEeENUXA4 for <inip-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [50.116.54.116]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107B812D5CA for <inip-discuss@iab.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5883810F99 for <inip-discuss@iab.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:35:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mta87ORchvfl for <inip-discuss@iab.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:35:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (192-0-220-231.cpe.teksavvy.com [192.0.220.231]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9452210B68 for <inip-discuss@iab.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:35:55 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:35:53 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: inip-discuss@iab.org
Message-ID: <20160823163553.GG17214@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <CAOvDaJRu5=03zhT5d=0USHmKc7zfmD89CwZ78QvJ=Lai4TAZ=Q@mail.gmail.com> <20160822233657.GL1712@mx2.yitter.info> <CAOvDaJS+K-8Shu5=z-qWB6PhhuFxHQ_M8V7wqSa14d1ANW1+xQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOvDaJS+K-8Shu5=z-qWB6PhhuFxHQ_M8V7wqSa14d1ANW1+xQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/inip-discuss/uSqPlY-dz-Ju5jvojJO98Vc7jt8>
Subject: Re: [Inip-discuss] Innovation in DNS
X-BeenThere: inip-discuss@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IAB Internet Names and Identifiers Discussion List <inip-discuss.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/inip-discuss>, <mailto:inip-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/inip-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:inip-discuss@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:inip-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/inip-discuss>, <mailto:inip-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:36:00 -0000

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 05:24:21PM +0100, Bauyrzhan Askar wrote:
> Unlike com zone, root zone is accessed every time when DNS resolution for
> unknown domain name is requested no matter which TLD zone the unknown
> domain name belongs to.

Not true.  That claim ignores the effects of TTLs.

> *So, increase of SLD together with TLD, increases rate of DNS resolution
> query to root nameserver. *

So?

> But the problem here is that when TLD list increases and any entry or
> update made to the root zone file in master root nameserver, all root
> nameservers have to be updated which in turn
> 
> 1)     increases the load to network handling root nameservers. (this may
> not be a big problem at the moment)
> 
> 2)     increases the time for update to be finished throughout the world
> because of increased number of copies of root nameservers.
> 
> 3)     increases the load to any particular root nameserver, no matter of
> number of copies of root nameserver, because of the increased rate of
> updates.

All of this is true of the com zone, too, so I don't see how it's
relevant at all.  I just don't see that this is a significant
improvement of the DNS, and it involves adding changes to the system
that present their own risks.  If we're going to undertake such risks,
it seems to me a tiny incremental improvement to address no actual
practical problem anyone has for only one zone seems like a low
return on the investment.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com