[dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs

 On 07 Jun, Edward Lewis wrote:
 | At 10:20 +0200 6/7/05, Mohsen Souissi wrote:
 | 
 | >years. Btw I don't think this technique is "outdated" today as Ed said
 | >since the alternative he mentioned (Anycast) is not widely deployed
 | >yet by TLDs (only a few TLDs are anycast today and still some
 | >political and technical issues to be solved... Just think for instance
 | >at IPv6 allocation policy which does't allow yet TLDs in the RIPE
 | >region to get an "unfiltered" block... Yes I know, a new proposal is
 | >underway to be adopted by the RIPE address-policy wg...). IMHO, the
 | >name compression popularity relies on two facts today:
 | 
 | I would say the concerns are outdated as far as protocol 
 | considerations, but I do agree that there are some bureaucratic road 
 | blocks that it still helps you get around.
 | 
 | My answer to that though is to remove the bureaucratic road blocks.

==> May the Force be with us...

 | >- it addresses and  mitigates new technical issues which didn't use to
 | >  occurr frequently a decade ago, such as riskk of glue dropping due
 | >  to new "greedy" RRs such as AAAA or DNSSEC-related RRs. So
 | >  compression may save a large amount of bytes which may be
 | >  transformed in a new NS deployment (icluding its A/AAAA glues);
 | 
 | One AAAA record, with a compressed owner name would need, what 
 | 12+128/8=28 bytes.  If all of the nameservers were named 
 | [a-f].nic.fr, then you would need to compress 4 name servers names 
 | for each additional AAAA record you could squeeze in.  (That's 4 
 | label compressions saving the "nic.fr." portion.)
 | 
 | An RRSIG is, for .fr as signer name, going to need 12+22+1024/8 
 | (assuming RSA 1024).  That's about 40 name compressions needed.
 | 
 | Now, I suppose that the savings calculation I am presenting isn't 
 | completely accurate and am willing to go back and do a more realistic 
 | calculation for a particular TLD and proposed naming system to see if 
 | the numbers are right.  
 |
 | The point I am trying to make is that name 
 | compression savings pale in comparison to the size of the records we 
 | are looking to add.  (Note, for DNSSEC, EDNS0 is required...further 
 | muddying the debate.)

==> If it can help, I have already written a technical document
containing accurate calculations of the root-servers' DNS response size
for a TLD in the general case and for FR particularly, with and
without IPv6 glue: http://w6.nic.fr/dnsv6/resp-size.html
Btw, thanks to that article, FR was able to safely submit 3 glue AAAA to
the root zone...

Otoh, I agree with you, DNSSEC requires anyway EDNS.0 and it's
pointless squeezing names because saved room is anyway too small
compared to the required space...

Mohsen.