Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

Hi Warren, Thanks for your work, :-) I totally agree: Not all Disposable Domains are wildcards like xxx.github.io / xxx.blogspot.com / xxx.qzone.qq.com. So, wildcard solution can not cover all example Disposable/Temporary Domains in the paper, as your analysis. The question is how to avoid

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

El 18 ag 2017, a les 11:33, Lanlan Pan va escriure: > So, can you talk about how your proposal saves cost over using a heuristic? > It can be used with cache aging heuristic. > Heuristic read in aaa/bbb/ccc.foo.com , expire and move > out; then read in

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

Thanks a lot for your detail analysis, :-) Ralf Weber 于2017年8月17日周四 下午11:16写道： > Moin! > > On 17 Aug 2017, at 0:09, Lanlan Pan wrote: > > Yes, I agree, in fact the *online cache rate* is small (0.12% queries), > LRU > > & TTL works fine. > > SWILD not save many online cache size,

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

Thanks a lot for your pertinent comments, :-) Ted Lemon 于2017年8月17日周四 下午9:56写道： > El 17 ag 2017, a les 0:09, Lanlan Pan va escriure: > > We can use SWILD to optimize it, not need to detecting, just remove items > which SWILD marked, to save cost. > > > So,

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

Moin! On 17 Aug 2017, at 0:09, Lanlan Pan wrote: > Yes, I agree, in fact the *online cache rate* is small (0.12% queries), LRU > & TTL works fine. > SWILD not save many online cache size, because of the queries rate. > And Temporary Domain Names/ All Names: 41.7% for 7 days statistics, the >

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

Ralf Weber 于2017年8月16日周三 下午4:22写道： > Moin! > > On 16 Aug 2017, at 6:19, Lanlan Pan wrote: > > > We analyzed our recursive query log, about 18.6 billion queries from > > 12/01/2015 to 12/07/2015. > > > > We found about 4.7 Million temporary domains occupy the recursive's > > cache,

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

Moin! On 16 Aug 2017, at 6:19, Lanlan Pan wrote: We analyzed our recursive query log, about 18.6 billion queries from 12/01/2015 to 12/07/2015. We found about 4.7 Million temporary domains occupy the recursive's cache, which are subdomain wildcards from Skype, QQ, Mcafee, Microsoft,

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

On 13 August 2017 at 18:14, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressive > use-10#section-10 is not in the published RFC 8198 because 7942 (sadly) > mandates that this section is removed before publication. I suspect this >

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

On 12 Aug 2017, at 18:31, Matthew Pounsett wrote: 8198 doesn't have an implementation status section https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-10#section-10 is not in the published RFC 8198 because 7942 (sadly) mandates that this section is removed before publication.

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

On 11 Aug 2017, at 7:39, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > It sounds like you're assuming that SWILD would be supported by caching > servers that do not support DNSSEC or NSEC aggressive use. Why do you > expect implementers would adopt SWILD before adopting these much older > features? This is my top