[e2e] TCP improved closing strategies?
William Allen Simpson
william.allen.simpson at gmail.com
Fri Aug 21 15:47:25 PDT 2009
Vikram Visweswaraiah wrote:
> I'm still somewhat curious about the problem space. Is NAT the
> culprit? It seems like DNS has a few reasonable mechanisms to limit
> the number of queries to servers - TTL setting, resolver caches,
> round-robin records. Why don't these help? Is there a specific network
> or scenario where this is a big problem or is this a fairly widespread
Sometimes, but as previously noted, this is about recursive nameservers.
How does any of the above help at all?
We already know that most stub resolvers don't bother with TTL or cache:
25.4% Identical Query
44.9% Repeated Query
2.15% Legitimate Query
There were average (not peak) 644+ thousand queries per MSL banging away
at 65 thousand ports, and those are old numbers. IIRC, peak was roughly
8,000 per second (920+ thousand per MSL). That's for one root server,
*with* *existing* round robin rotation among 13 root servers.
As we switch to TCP, that's not scaling well.
On namedroppers, bert hubert wrote:
# This, however, is not the point; we are not dealing with a 'clean
# network'. We are dealing with a network ('The Internet') that saw a
# 600-fold increase in TCP traffic, which should not have happened.
Anyway, this is supposed to be the end to end group. Why are many folks
trying the "Somebody Else's Problem" approach?
> PS: Link below to draft seems broken
He's put out a couple more revisions over the past couple of days. Try:
I've not read it.... That's not the direction I'm going!
My drafty draft is circulating, I'll have something less drafty in a few
more days, and probably running code in a few weeks. Since there are so
many nay-sayers, I'll just send it to any interested parties privately.
Thanks again to those that contributed useful information!
More information about the end2end-interest