Re: [tae] New draft: announcing the supported transports via DNS

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 18 September 2009 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tae@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tae@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23FE3A6A0B for <tae@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.207
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 GNYQ6vNXlnFe for <tae@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ECAF3A694A for <tae@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap0EAIaus0qrR7PD/2dsb2JhbACKbatZiFABj3kFhBuBXQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,412,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="391727342"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Sep 2009 23:01:17 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n8IN1H21007798; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:01:17 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8IN1HoK018736; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:01:17 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:01:17 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.198]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:01:16 -0700
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Caitlin Bestler' <cait@asomi.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0909180057060.5479@zippy.stdio.be> <77F0974F-62CD-411C-96D3-C29E6D872DEA@asomi.com> <4AB2E6AB.7020409@gmail.com><4AB3A33B.7080909@ifi.uio.no> <4AB3A5DE.1040708@isi.edu> <055001ca388b$163a0070$5da36b80@cisco.com> <4AB3CF61.5060208@isi.edu> <38542A4D-C3D0-4BE8-BF2B-FB99252C596C@asomi.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:01:16 -0700
Message-ID: <062f01ca38b3$edad27d0$5da36b80@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: Aco4nfl5Y1yRraRyQ2GilTBjaAFgqQAFULFw
In-Reply-To: <38542A4D-C3D0-4BE8-BF2B-FB99252C596C@asomi.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Sep 2009 23:01:16.0973 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED94BDD0:01CA38B3]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3751; t=1253314877; x=1254178877; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tae]=20New=20draft=3A=20announcing=20t he=20supported=20transports=20via=20DNS |Sender:=20; bh=FDjVJEOcLsgl35SsjFq3WGFBVWOZScdLQ7LHZ153gjo=; b=WSihWwQ/ITcMTrm9VS8qrfLPa6/wLFHx/SW5dX1wRdZT4L+wKJv8XmaC+t 66ko/s0GGR8EBOgJ2xPSnG+CEhF/NQMX04/T8kHGNOhZXkbqjdnQgMj/AAj4 2GQIdhEH9g;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: tae@ietf.org, 'Joe Touch' <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [tae] New draft: announcing the supported transports via DNS
X-BeenThere: tae@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Architecture Evolution <tae.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae>, <mailto:tae-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tae>
List-Post: <mailto:tae@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tae-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae>, <mailto:tae-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:00:26 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Caitlin Bestler [mailto:cait@asomi.com] 
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:24 PM
> To: Joe Touch
> Cc: Dan Wing; tae@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tae] New draft: announcing the supported 
> transports via DNS
> 
> 
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> >
> > Dan Wing wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: tae-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tae-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >>> Behalf Of Joe Touch
> >>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 8:23 AM
> >>> To: Michael Welzl
> >>> Cc: tae@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [tae] New draft: announcing the supported
> >>> transports via DNS
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael Welzl wrote:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This discussion reminds me of something else:
> >>>>> someone (I think Jana?) mentioned the possibility of negotiating
> >>>>> more than just the transport protocol, e.g. even the usage of  
> >>>>> IPv6,
> >>>>> with a negotiation protocol.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recently talked about this with someone who knows more about
> >>>>> IPv6 than me (actually not hard to find such a 
> person!), and that
> >>>>> someone said that a standard is already in place for determining
> >>>>> whether IPv6 can be used **via DNS**.
> >> That presumes two things:
> >>
> >> a) you know which protocol to use to get to the DNS
> >>
> >> b) not everybody uses the DNS, at which point you 
> definitely need to
> >> know the address format since you need to know the address
> >>
> >>> Not everybody uses TCP, either.  For example, RTP is commonly
> >>> sent over UDP and the IPv4 addresses are commonly signaled in
> >>> SDP as IPv4 address literals.  So RTP doesn't use DNS or TCP.
> >>
> >>> But DNS-less and TCP-less applications or usage are not the
> >>> 80% that is the interesting problem.  I can't maintain
> >>> host tables for the Internet anymore -- it's too big.  The need
> >>> for DNS is more acute with long and awkward IPv6 addresses.
> >
> > As you note, addresses are sometimes used for non-human 
> purposes, and
> > with IPv6 they could be created on the fly - I wouldn't 
> want to have  
> > to
> > wait to register them in the DNS vs exchanging them in-band.
> >
> 
> 
> Of course if you have already used application specific 
> mechanisms to exchange
> IP addresses in-band then you obviously have the means to 
> specify which transport protocol and options to use as well.
> 
> That still leaves discovery via limited DNS, urls with literal IP  
> addresses, discovery
> by other administrative means and local discovery mechanisms such as  
> zeroconf.

Or we just shrug and don't optimize those cases.  I did a survey
of the top 1,000,000 domains on Alexa's list and about 2% have 
IPv4 address literals in their default page (e.g., an a=href
pointing to a URL with an IPv4 address literal in the hostname).
Also of Alexa's top 1,000,000 domains, 3455 were IPv4 address
literals, which is 0.35% of the top 1 million domains.  I don't
care much about optimizing for 0.35% of the Internet.  My 
interest is allowing SCTP to replace TCP, and allowing SCTP
and/or DCCP to replace UDP.  Optimizing this replacement so
we don't have to do zillions of Happy Eyeballs probes is 
valuable.


Alexa's list of websites can be obtained from the top right 
of http://www.alexa.com/topsites

-d


> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know what impact DNS caches would have on a DNS based  
> solution?
> Are the entire set of DNS records for a domain routinely cached?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Caitlin Bestler
> cait@asomi.com
> http://www.asomi.com/CaitlinBestlerResume.html
>