On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 08:55:12PM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
Given the risk of EDNS payload size related drops from an uknown server
and extra roundtrips, what are the reasons why this option should be
used in preference to TCP (that is just 1 RTT longer to get an answer
from) and has
Mukund Sivaraman mailto:m...@isc.org
Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:13 AM
Sorry, TCP also takes 2 RTT similar to UDP with DNS cookies. I had
included the initial UDP query by mistake, but this won't be involved if
TCP is directly tried.
3 round trips, 7 packets, for an isolated tcp/53
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@nic.br wrote:
My feedback to a possible -01 version is to add something related to not
consider NTAs for the upper hierarchy of a failed DNSSEC domain. For
instance, even if I see a good number of .gov domains failed DNSSEC, adding a
NTA
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:47:33AM +, Tony Finch wrote:
That is a good point. Happily I think the draft already makes it hard for
operators to do that, since an NTA will be automatically removed if its
zone validates (section 10).
Thank you for pointing this out, Tony; I'd missed it when I
On December 16, 2014 9:47:34 AM PST, Mukund Sivaraman m...@isc.org wrote:
Hi Paul
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 09:20:12AM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
3 round trips, 7 packets, for an isolated tcp/53 query.
s -
- s+a
a -
q -
- r+a
f+a -
- f+a
It's 2 round trips to get at the
Em 16/12/2014, à(s) 15:54:000, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net escreveu:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@nic.br wrote:
My feedback to a possible -01 version is to add something related to not
consider NTAs for the upper hierarchy of a failed DNSSEC domain. For
Comments below. Executive summary: everything's fine except I'm still not
convinced nothing needs to be done about point 3 of my DISCUSS. I will be
incommunicado between Christmas and 1/5, and to some extent possibly sooner, so
a quick response is essential if you are hoping to have this
Its time to stop obsessing over latency in DNS!
DNS doesn't exist in a vacuum, but then goes to at minimum, a TCP handshake,
and who knows what else beyond it. Amdahl's law matters.
How many headaches would go away if all DNS is over TCP? And how much would it
really make a difference in
Its time to stop obsessing over latency in DNS!
DNS doesn't exist in a vacuum, but then goes to at minimum, a TCP handshake,
and who knows what else beyond it. Amdahl's law matters.
How many headaches would go away if all DNS is over TCP? And how much would it
really make a difference in
Hi Nicholas
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:44:40PM -0500, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
Its time to stop obsessing over latency in DNS!
DNS doesn't exist in a vacuum, but then goes to at minimum, a TCP
handshake, and who knows what else beyond it. Amdahl's law matters.
How many headaches would go
Hi Paul
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:32:08AM -0800, P Vixie wrote:
It's 2 round trips to get at the data, answer the question. FIN is
later.
The total transaction time includes all time during which state is
held. That third round trip is in your departmental budget and will
show up at scale
11 matches
Mail list logo
