IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] 2/3 of DNS traffic is IPv6 -- was: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed....

Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Fri, 25 September 2020 11:16 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA283A1372 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 04:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 KA-pjor4FmwE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 04:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC9003A1373 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 04:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.115] (host-79-121-44-57.kabelnet.hu [79.121.44.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 08PBFjXi075408 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:15:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host host-79-121-44-57.kabelnet.hu [79.121.44.57] claimed to be [192.168.1.115]
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <VI1P194MB0285F47132384AC7C0D8A8DCAE3C0@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <F2516A37-06B1-44FC-850F-307114B7D6A5@gmail.com> <VI1P194MB0285B8AE9ACE88D1AF051ADAAE3A0@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <601FB9F8-DB83-4654-B652-BE07C49F7918@gmail.com> <VI1P194MB0285D67301646D4383320B55AE390@VI1P194MB0285.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <20200925065038.GP2485@Space.Net> <526B3152-E36C-4480-97BD-8476045FAE99@strotmann.de>
From: Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Message-ID: <f951b938-7c45-c700-c857-61ce1f70e3ce@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:15:46 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <526B3152-E36C-4480-97BD-8476045FAE99@strotmann.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------AE9DBA45110628FA12A1EA65"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=79.121.44.57; helo=[192.168.1.115]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/LkxE5SetyrcVbi4iC-PHsYpGmvQ>
Subject: [v6ops] 2/3 of DNS traffic is IPv6 -- was: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed....
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:16:12 -0000

Dear Carsten,

On 9/25/2020 11:07 AM, Carsten Strotmann wrote:

[...]

> I did a measurement of the use of IP protocols on a large (> 1M 
> customers) DNS resolver in Germany in July. More than 2/3 of all DNS 
> traffic from that resolver to the Internet was over IPv6, less than 
> 1/3 over IPv4.

Thank you very much for this result! It is important for me, because I 
experienced that some authoritative DNS server implementations had 
higher performance over IPv4 than over IPv6 and I used IPv4 for their 
benchmarking. (My original motivation was to find a suitable 
authoritative DNS server implementation to support then benchmarking of 
DNS64 implementations according to RFC 8219, thus I wanted to achieve as 
high as possible performance. But I think that my results are relevant 
from the viewpoint of "normal" DNS usage, too.) Thus your results 
suggest me that I should repeat my measurements over IPv6, too.

As for my results regarding the performance of the tested authoritative 
DNS servers, both Knot DNS and NSD radically outperformed BIND. If you 
are interested in, you can find all the details in my open access paper:

G. Lencse, "Benchmarking Authoritative DNS Servers", /IEEE Access/, vol. 
8. pp. 130224–130238, July 2020. 
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3009141<http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/IEEE-Access-2020-AuthDNS-revised.pdf>

Best regards,

Gábor

>
>
> At least for DNS, IPv6 is doing pretty good.
>
> Greetings
>
> Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email