IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Happy Eyeballs Extension for MIF

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 06 April 2011 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597313A69C3 for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.132
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.467, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Of4jqCNu5c08 for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3733A6452 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTZzMWFs7vrYwR0QzH++pl6PQJWmoS7GY@postini.com; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:26:01 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973C21B8715 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (webmail.nominum.com [64.89.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "webmail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C3D5190065 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:26:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from [10.1.10.18] (173.162.214.218) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:26:00 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462019D58ED@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:25:57 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <AC98046D-ACB0-448D-A716-28444FB975F0@nominum.com>
References: <AANLkTi=oYH-mpkBNweFH7YKKXNh3d=-ocZeLODmBmA=z@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=VrnWR=yetzdQU4JuPa2t86NF2iw@mail.gmail.com> <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462019D58ED@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
To: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [mif] Happy Eyeballs Extension for MIF
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:24:18 -0000

On Apr 6, 2011, at 9:39 AM, <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com> <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
> I'm also concerned with DNS requests sent over all interfaces. IMHO, this is a waste of resource; besides draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection clearly states that this practice should be avoided. 

The DNS server selection draft is a point solution to a very restricted problem: how to deal with situations where DNS servers on different interfaces will give different answers to queries for the same name.   It is not a general solution.

In principal you are right that it would be better not to send duplicate queries if the answers are going to be (as they should be) the same.   However, it is not the case that answers will in fact always be the same, and there are common real-world scenarios where they are not.   One goal of this working group is (or at least IMHO should be) to address those common real-world scenarios.

Also, when you say that sending DNS requests is a waste of resources, I think it's important to be clear about exactly what resources you think are being wasted.   E.g., are you talking about battery, or bandwidth, or server utilization (or some other option I didn't think of:)?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email