FYI. A simple lab test done by my colleague.

http://www.dnsv6lab.net/2016/03/05/A-performance-test-of-DNS-over-different-transport-protocol/

There are some observations:

1) Keep-alive does reduce latency in long time queries. It is a little
surprising to see that with keep-alive, DNS over HTTP’s latency is almost
the same as UDP.
2) When coming to HTTPS, the keep-alive cannot reduce latency
significantly. The reason is probably that TLS has to do the handshake to
change the key which might be the main cost of latency.
3) HTTP/2 can reduce the latency in HTTPS.
4) For the first query, DNS over HTTP’s latency is nearly two times of UDP,
which is reasonable and a little bigger than TCP.
DNS over TLS’s latency is larger than DNS over HTTPS, even with keep-alive.


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Song Linjian (Davey) <songlinj...@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hi Bob ,
>
> I update the draft to 01 version to respond to your suggestion and
> question.
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Linjian Song and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http
> Revision: 01
> Title: DNS wire-format over HTTP
> Document date: 2016-02-29
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 8
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-01.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-dns-wireformat-http/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-01
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-01
>
> Abstract:
>   This memo introduces a way to tunnel DNS data over HTTP.  This may be
>   useful in any situation where DNS is not working properly, such as
>   when there is middlebox misbehavior.
>
> Best regards,
> Davey
>
> 在 2016年2月20日,04:03,Bob Harold <rharo...@umich.edu> 写道:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Song Linjian (Davey) <
> songlinj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>
>>
>>        Title           : DNS wire-format over HTTP
>>        Authors         : Linjian Song
>>                          Shane Kerr
>>                          Runxia Wan
>> Filename        : draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-00.txt
>> Pages           : 8
>> Date            : 2016-02-17
>>
>> Abstract:
>>   This memo introduces a way to tunnel DNS data over HTTP.  This may be
>>   useful in any situation where DNS is not working properly, such as
>>   when there is middlebox misbehavior.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-dns-wireformat-http/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-00
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Davey Song(宋林健)
>> BII Lab
>> songlinj...@gmail.com
>>
>> Some thoughts while reading  draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-00
>
> 1.  Introduction
> third paragraph
> "Finally, developers can choose HTTPS to provides data
>    integrity and privacy as well."
> "provides" should be "provide"
> Also, there should be two spaces before "Finally" to separate it from the
> previous sentence.
>
> 3.2.  Header Fields
> I am trying to understand why the recursive server would care whether the
> original query was UDP or TCP?  Would it be concerned about source address
> spoofing?
> If the stub resolver is talking http directly, without a proxy, should it
> put 'tcp' in this field?  That should be made clear.
> If the proxy server is running on a loopback address, would it make sense
> to say 'tcp' even if the actual request was 'udp', assuming that address
> spoofing is the concern, and would not happen with a loopback?
>
> 3.3.  Message Body
> end of second paragraph
> "In the
>    context of HTTP, there is content-length header filed [section 3.3.2
>    in RFC 7230 [RFC7230]]in which the field-value is the same with two
>    bytes length field in DNS over TCP."
> "filed" should be "field"
> Also, are you saying that the two bytes DNS length field should not be
> included in the http body?  It is not clear to me, I think we should say
> that explicitly.
>
> --
> Bob Harold
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Davey Song(宋林健)
> BII Lab
> songlinj...@gmail.com
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to