At Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:51:17 -0500, Olafur Gudmundsson <o...@ogud.com> wrote:
> > The goal of this proposal is to allow small changes to be > > communicated over UDP, and remove as much redundant information from > > the zone transfer as possible. > > > > We still need to send new RRSIGs, and since the main concern is the > > size of them (whether they are to be removed or added), I guess > > sending a non-negligible number of RRSIGs could easily require TCP, > > even if we can omit a half of them. So I'm not sure how often we can > > avoid falling back to TCP (M)IXFR thanks to this in practice. Again, > > some actual measurement or at least a quantitative analysis may help. > > not sending the OLD RRsig’s is a big savings on its own, in particular when > people > use large RSA keys. Close to 50% when all you are just refreshing a signature > on a one or two RRsets. I know it's a big savings. My (apparently unclear) point was it was not clear to me how effective this "savings" is in terms of avoiding the fallback to TCP. See my other message I just sent to Matthijs (and the list). -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
