IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net> Wed, 13 March 2024 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
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 064C7C14F70E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=forwardingplane.net
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 KVpfUaxS2snl for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72f.google.com (mail-qk1-x72f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 E4F73C14F6EC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72f.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-78810ba2ff1so11681385a.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=forwardingplane.net; s=google; t=1710361838; x=1710966638; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9DuKKCJP32lnJe2yARqa6M+1HANWIB+6coUlfvldQnk=; b=k7vx2bh+ryHysrylmKFdRCvCLv0qqMNnVKyI1pfvT2TXk2zpyfYEYGUT1+APiNFkqs t1n4P24BQdeXGJTTT3j+krhEZWl9ofpCtZGGKDdzB+vqbbfvIZjgT/q4fkb6YUZNCPXn 9tJ80Ag42hiqnWcXYH53NBF7t6FpZnIQc7ugs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710361838; x=1710966638; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=9DuKKCJP32lnJe2yARqa6M+1HANWIB+6coUlfvldQnk=; b=H+EffvRffemKdQnFKM0gfXiLpUPzUPmq9hZ8OruAlJi/Pg1ITnovAMDfP/4idjwZ7g WOkDo0HZkASwn6uDulp93+lp3C6/77h0ELoSdajvPg3sz+jpylWV0i2YdVfsAVG9wqWI O289IuPySmOLPmW5TVnKKrOXhRpQFrlSXyABWyvZjdzzegxT0p9HP2wZrFsH+HfxAy5/ RbculSg1spNv08e9PhX0Ulqmj8KtDu+mqLEssK2WGvwXm6bE5Mqe2RSyJApOjf6n6+L4 My8KIKLpqv3mlsX3r8UqP+fQnoZyp8aVJfqZuq5gR+neuL4cDTSjcWLO+c+j04pqKgN6 YamQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzh0oMMlNF9xmLMPElZobMbYbesPnUTVwdg+fnsnKxHGpHkruhm sLJaqw3r10fhuyXC09wxo2RY1l2tlIfE+rwBjRA/SiEyqf74HAIF27Gflwje/VP2MHO2pG6YZu5 MyTbtXTns4Emrufqq9GNzBTxH4xxo/ptn9iXbySBRrH/sOZg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEsZ+luP+k7fDC+yjiqfh2eHkwbIYtUoCJpCGDMiHwIf/4Vu7QA89NSU4VKEIri5UzUVvMx2KRbc5axFvb7Fio=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5952:0:b0:42e:b8e9:720c with SMTP id 18-20020ac85952000000b0042eb8e9720cmr16180087qtz.6.1710361837925; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <42b686ec-e650-4d77-96ad-2b1ed28361ab@hit.bme.hu>
From: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:30:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CACMsEX-qXKO1z07ZC4rACyg_PPTr++GHK098i37vk9w8XTUQMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c99879061390a51a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/h3hIdZPPCV-tYVnbXJ3VCg0ZPaA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 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 20:30:43 -0000

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.

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