IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] DNS64 -- Re: No recent progress of jool.mx -- Re: New conference IPv6-mostly deployment

Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Wed, 13 March 2024 20:43 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 B1560C14F6F2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JqiW7Kkx5Bgm for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D38CC14F69A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.18.16] (lglj4300.sze.hu [193.224.130.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 42DKh6He007349 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:43:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host lglj4300.sze.hu [193.224.130.125] claimed to be [172.16.18.16]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------VMIRIHxDkbDcLVPs54TIrQjj"
Message-ID: <fbaa283c-26a4-4330-98dd-2a5bd002926f@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:43:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <CACMsEX9_SxHK-bJU5spyH1agPoWbQCP5fH38PYNOr6i1KKXEtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALRKgT50XJwemdS4pk+fU6TD9rURMBAzu0vcZyWk9KZh9LuADQ@mail.gmail.com> <54eabd2e-b94d-4507-aa61-db91b17d766f@hit.bme.hu> <CACMsEX9o0p9PPb3GTXLiSMDyJXmm-37EjGzakFVOtv4tk4axGA@mail.gmail.com> <74d64acb-d700-4511-825b-8e650e83d495@hit.bme.hu> <CACMsEX9fwmOrO_dzqVq=i+uM-h6F7vXEHLR4H_SCe96nKV7_zA@mail.gmail.com> <42b686ec-e650-4d77-96ad-2b1ed28361ab@hit.bme.hu> <CACMsEX-qXKO1z07ZC4rACyg_PPTr++GHK098i37vk9w8XTUQMw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
In-Reply-To: <CACMsEX-qXKO1z07ZC4rACyg_PPTr++GHK098i37vk9w8XTUQMw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.11 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=193.224.130.125; helo=[172.16.18.16]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.11;
X-DCC-www.nova53.net-Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.86 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/W1M3XWFSNdNEzl7bu447OJId9os>
Subject: [v6ops] DNS64 -- Re: No recent progress of jool.mx -- Re: New conference IPv6-mostly deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:43:23 -0000

Hi Nick,

On 3/13/2024 9:30 PM, Nick Buraglio wrote:
> That's definitely good info. At work we've done testing with unbound, 
> bind and one other one that I can't recall. I believe we ended up with 
> bind in our data centers for DNS64 simply due to more institutional 
> knowledge. My office runs v6-only using unbound.

Yes, I think this is why many people use BIND. It is a kind of industry 
standard DNS server. But there are much better ones in term of performance!

Gábor

>
> I believe Tom Costello used unbound on the supercomputing 24 network, 
> but I may be misremembering (he can chime in and correct me as he's on 
> the list).
>
> nb
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 3:22 PM Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> wrote:
>
>     Hi Nick,
>
>     On 3/13/2024 9:05 PM, Nick Buraglio wrote:
>>     DNS64 is currently done using unbound, but it has changed and may
>>     change again or perhaps add more options to gain more experience.
>
>     According to my measurements, Unbond is the best choice in terms
>     of performance.
>
>     I benchmarked PowerDNS, Unbound and BIND in 2017 and found that
>     Unbound had the highest performance when using 1-8 active CPU
>     cores, PowerDNS showed the best scalability with the number of
>     active CPU cores, and BIND was inferior in both metrics. If you
>     are interested in the details, you can find them is our (green
>     open access) paper, just click on the link below:
>
>     G. Lencse and Y. Kadobayashi, "Benchmarking DNS64 Implementations:
>     Theory and Practice", /Computer Communications/ (Elsevier), vol.
>     127, no. 1, pp. 61-74, September 1, 2018, DOI:
>     10.1016/j.comcom.2018.05.005
>     Review version in PDF
>     <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ECC-2018-DNS64-BM-for-review.pdf>
>
>     (Their most relevant performance results are in Tables V, VI, and
>     VII.)
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     Gábor
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     v6ops@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email