Sorry, this sort of response to queries. On Jul 19, 2016 10:14, "Matthew Pounsett" <m...@conundrum.com> wrote:
> > > On 19 July 2016 at 09:46, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > >> I thought the proposal specifically excluded support for this sort of >> query in any case other than for queries from authoritative servers. >> >> I'm not sure what you mean about "this sort of query". There wouldn't > be any special query sent to recursives. The response from recursives > could include the additional records called for by the EXTRA records cached > when the authoritative was queried. I don't see anything about that being > prohibited in the draft... in fact I see no reason for ยง 6 if it was > prohibited. There'd be no reason for recursives to ever receive the EXTRA > records themselves. > > > >> On Jul 19, 2016 09:37, "Matthew Pounsett" <m...@conundrum.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 19 July 2016 at 09:19, Ralf Weber <d...@fl1ger.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Moin! >>>> >>>> On 19 Jul 2016, at 9:00, Christopher Morrow wrote: >>>> >>>> > On Jul 19, 2016 8:36 AM, "Ralf Weber" <d...@fl1ger.de> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Except that if you have a decent size and hot Cache with refreshing >>>> >> these records will be in there anyway. IMHO you gained nothing, but I >>>> >> agree with Jim Reid that it would be good to have data on this. >>>> > >>>> > Nothing except some DNS round trips. >>>> > How could that matter though? >>>> As said I don't believe we have additional round trips between the >>>> recursive and the authoritative server in most of the cases. That is >>>> what we need data for though. DNS and applications that use DNS have >>>> unbelievable levels of caching. So while this all might apply to you >>>> if you run your own resolver just for you, it's not the case in big >>>> cache deployments most people use (be it their ISP or some big public >>>> resolver). >>>> >>>> While I tend to agree that the optimization gain between the recursive >>> and authoritative server is probably minimal, the potential gain between >>> the recursive and the stub is huge. Other than the fact that the >>> explanation focuses on the authoritative, I don't see any reason this needs >>> to be limited to recursive->authoritative conversations. Indeed, with the >>> OPT signalling a recursive could obtain the EXTRA records and provide the >>> same optimized answers to stubs. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DNSOP mailing list >>> DNSOP@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >>> >>> >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
