[DNSOP] Batch Multiple Query Packet

2012-02-27 Thread Hector Santos
I am interesting to find information about past or possible current 
interest regarding the support of a Batch single call of multiple 
query packets.


If it doesn't already exist or not considered in the past as an 
unfeasible concept, I am interest in seeing if this is something worth 
pursuing.


Technical Background reasoning.

With the advent of new protocols, especially those offering a domain 
policy construct, the TXT record is used as the fastest entry point 
with the widest support for query resolution.


Yet there are (at least were) technical concerns that this not serve 
to benefit DNS for large scale usage, therefore considerations are 
giving to include a migration path to use new registration of RR types.


This migration path comes with the recognition for a short term 
overhead of using a dual type query concept and long term hope for the 
new RR type to become the non-overhead single query satisfying result.


The overall issue is two folds:

1) one where publishers may have to redundantly create two records and 
the DNS resolvers will always have to do a two queries to maximize 
widest support, and


2) The continued possible dearth of DNS servers (see RFC 3597 
Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types) that do not 
support unnamed RR types and/or the recursion requirement.


If DNS server offered support for a Batch Query of multiple packets 
under a single call, this may help with the above migration overhead 
concerns.


Is this something worth pursuing as a new I-D for DNS servers?

Thanks

--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com


___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Re: [DNSOP] Batch Multiple Query Packet

2012-02-27 Thread Masataka Ohta
Hector Santos wrote:

 I am interesting to find information about past or possible current 
 interest regarding the support of a Batch single call of multiple query 
 packets.
 
 If it doesn't already exist or not considered in the past as an 
 unfeasible concept, I am interest in seeing if this is something worth 
 pursuing.

Having a query requesting multiple RRTYPEs is a bad idea,
because only some of the RRTYPEs may be found in cache.

But, it's OK to have separate queries for each RRTYPEs in a
single packet.

Use TCP or try to extend UDP.

However,

 this may help with the above migration overhead concerns.

I don't think so.

Masataka Ohta
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Re: [DNSOP] Batch Multiple Query Packet

2012-02-27 Thread Paul Vixie
On 2012-02-28 12:27 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
 At 13:35 -0500 2/27/12, Hector Santos wrote:
 If it doesn't already exist or not considered in the past as an
 unfeasible concept, I am interest in seeing if this is something
 worth pursuing.

 One (not the only, Ohta replied with another) of the oft-cited
 obstacles is the presence of only one RCODE field in the packet. (What
 if one query would be NXDOMAIN and the other has an answer?)


indeed, this is why multiple queries were not supported in the original
DNS, and it's why EDNS doesn't have it either. the number of signalling
bits needed to explain what went on with the multiple queries made
folks' heads explode. the logic is still online if you want to see it:
http://nsa.vix.com/~vixie/edns1.txt.

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Re: [DNSOP] Batch Multiple Query Packet

2012-02-27 Thread Joe Abley

On 2012-02-27, at 19:49, Paul Vixie wrote:

 On 2012-02-28 12:27 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
 At 13:35 -0500 2/27/12, Hector Santos wrote:
 If it doesn't already exist or not considered in the past as an
 unfeasible concept, I am interest in seeing if this is something
 worth pursuing.
 
 One (not the only, Ohta replied with another) of the oft-cited
 obstacles is the presence of only one RCODE field in the packet. (What
 if one query would be NXDOMAIN and the other has an answer?)
 
 indeed, this is why multiple queries were not supported in the original
 DNS, and it's why EDNS doesn't have it either.

Isn't that really an argument against multiple responses being carried in the 
same packet, rather than multiple queries?

I'll observe that there are exciting amplification opportunities in a world 
where a single packet could trigger multiple large responses, though :-)


Joe

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Re: [DNSOP] Batch Multiple Query Packet

2012-02-27 Thread Edward Lewis

At 16:55 -0800 2/27/12, Joe Abley wrote:


I'll observe that there are exciting amplification opportunities in a
world where a single packet could trigger multiple large responses, though :-)


Yes, please, let's not. ;)  Size amplification is already a problem. 
And, this would  make monitoring extra hard (how many responses were 
supposed to be sent?) and, well, just try to write the re-assembly 
code, trying to collect the responses to the original API call.


An especially unpleasant place in the afterlife is reserved for 
whomever enables this.


--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStarYou can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Re: [DNSOP] Batch Multiple Query Packet

2012-02-27 Thread Tony Finch
On 27 Feb 2012, at 18:35, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:

 I am interesting to find information about past or possible current interest 
 regarding the support of a Batch single call of multiple query packets.

It isn't necessary to add protocol support, since you can already send multiple 
concurrent queries on a single socket.

Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch  d...@dotat.at  http://dotat.at/
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Re: [DNSOP] Batch Multiple Query Packet

2012-02-27 Thread Hector Santos

Paul Vixie wrote:

On 2012-02-28 12:27 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:

At 13:35 -0500 2/27/12, Hector Santos wrote:

If it doesn't already exist or not considered in the past as an
unfeasible concept, I am interest in seeing if this is something
worth pursuing.

One (not the only, Ohta replied with another) of the oft-cited
obstacles is the presence of only one RCODE field in the packet. (What
if one query would be NXDOMAIN and the other has an answer?)



indeed, this is why multiple queries were not supported in the original
DNS, and it's why EDNS doesn't have it either. the number of signalling
bits needed to explain what went on with the multiple queries made
folks' heads explode. the logic is still online if you want to see it:
http://nsa.vix.com/~vixie/edns1.txt.


Thanks Paul. Great material.

I'm just winging it at this point.

First, I was focusing on the batching of related types, i.e. a 
protocol with new RR type but has an initial default intro record and 
fallback to TXT.  The goal is to have a single call that will yield a 
managed result to assist with the current concerns and waste 
associated with the migration of TXT to the new RR type usage.


Second, I considered there is no room for a packet count, but I was 
thinking of simply bundling two separate packets, i.e. 2*RR for the 
UPD send and how would the servers read this.


If DNS servers will barf, then never mind. :)

But if its offers a way to perform this concept with no breakage, 
perhaps the server will just read the first one and act on it or it 
will process the residual packet as well.  Of course, the client will 
still need to manage the responses with all the potential delays.


Again, just winging it. I don't like kludges. :)

--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com


___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


Re: [DNSOP] Batch Multiple Query Packet

2012-02-27 Thread Marc Lampo
Hello,

By single call, do you mean :
? single query packet (holding multiple questions) ?
   (I think this was part of EDNS1)
? single TCP session ?
   Where I believe there is no statement that forbids sending
   multiple, subsequent, queries over a single TCP connection.
   -- batching multiple queries over a single TCP session
is already allowed.

   Beware !  Some name server implementations have implicit,
sometimes configurable, maximum number of queries they accept
over a single TCP session.


Kind regards,

Marc Lampo
Security Officer
EURid (for .eu)


-Original Message-
From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsan...@isdg.net] 
Sent: 27 February 2012 07:36 PM
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] Batch Multiple Query Packet

I am interesting to find information about past or possible current 
interest regarding the support of a Batch single call of multiple 
query packets.

If it doesn't already exist or not considered in the past as an 
unfeasible concept, I am interest in seeing if this is something worth 
pursuing.

Technical Background reasoning.

With the advent of new protocols, especially those offering a domain 
policy construct, the TXT record is used as the fastest entry point 
with the widest support for query resolution.

Yet there are (at least were) technical concerns that this not serve 
to benefit DNS for large scale usage, therefore considerations are 
giving to include a migration path to use new registration of RR types.

This migration path comes with the recognition for a short term 
overhead of using a dual type query concept and long term hope for the 
new RR type to become the non-overhead single query satisfying result.

The overall issue is two folds:

1) one where publishers may have to redundantly create two records and 
the DNS resolvers will always have to do a two queries to maximize 
widest support, and

2) The continued possible dearth of DNS servers (see RFC 3597 
Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types) that do not 
support unnamed RR types and/or the recursion requirement.

If DNS server offered support for a Batch Query of multiple packets 
under a single call, this may help with the above migration overhead 
concerns.

Is this something worth pursuing as a new I-D for DNS servers?

Thanks

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com



___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop