Subject: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-14.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 15:25:03 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : DNS Referral Response Size Issues
	Author(s)       : Paul Vixie
                          Akira Kato
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-14.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2012-05-09

   With a mandated default minimum maximum UDP message size of 512
   octets, the DNS protocol presents some special problems for zones
   wishing to expose a moderate or high number of authority servers (NS
   RRs).  This document explains the operational issues caused by, or
   related to this response size limit, and suggests ways to optimize
   the use of this limited space.  Guidance is offered to DNS server
   implementors and to DNS zone operators.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-14.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-14.txt

The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize/

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:55:02 -0400

>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-14.txt

For kicks I ran the included perl code against the 313 delegations 
from the root zone (313 does not include "root" and does include the 
11 test TLDs).

...I'll leave it to the draft to explain the headings and rankings 
below.  I did this just to measure the draft's assessments against 
the TLD settings.  Not that the TLDs are the only audience of this 
draft, but it's a convenient data set.

Measured in %'ages of 313:

            Max length domain name     ||    Average length domain name
Color     A-only  A+AAAA A-preferred  ||    A-only  A+AAAA A-preferred
                                       ||
Green       59%     19%    19%        ||       99%    69%    69%
Yellow      35%     41%    18%        ||        1%    31%    28%
Orange       4%     21%     9%        ||                      1%
Red          2%     11%    53%        ||                      2%

The left matrix is more important (operationally).   That's about the 
only commentary I'll add, just to head off the concern of "red"s in 
the right matrix.

To Paul and Akira, here's more or less what I did with the results of the pl:

looping through the names in the root zone:
    server_set=`dig @127.0.0.1 +short $name ns`
    size_estimate=`perl respsize.pl $server_set`
    results=`echo $size_estimate | sed "getting '()'s#$name \2 \3 \4 \6 \7 \8#"`
    echo "$results"
and then used a spreadsheet to do the percentages.  (Shown in case I 
messed up something.)
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:00:00 -0500

I looked back at this and noticed I should have said "the right 
matrix" is more important.

Still, I'm a little surprised there's been no response from a 
comparison of a DNS Operations WG document to real-world measurements.

Are we okay with a document that issues criteria that only 70% of 
TLDs fall into "green?"  Are the grades overly harsh?  Should the 
TLDs be urged to work on getting to green?

At 13:55 -0400 5/10/12, Edward Lewis wrote:
>The left matrix is more important (operationally).   That's about 
>the only commentary I'll add, just to head off the concern of "red"s 
>in the right matrix.
>
>_______________________________________________
>DNSOP mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop