maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't know....

Joe Abley jabley at
Sat Aug 9 17:04:34 CDT 2008

On 9 Aug 2008, at 17:22, Church, Charles wrote:

> TCP would work, but it makes it more difficult to do Anycast, which
> works well with UDP and DNS.

TCP works pretty well with anycast too, if you're careful. It's  
helpful if your transactions are short-lived.

I've seen concern expressed that a server which can handle 100,000 qps  
over UDP might well fare substantially more poorly if every query  
arrives using TCP transport. The business of large-scale HTTP is a  
fairly well-understood problem, however, and has some similar  
characteristics, so perhaps this is less of a long-term problem. I  
don't know, I haven't run any experiments to figure out the practical  
impact on performance of using TCP exclusively.

There is, however, the practical consideration that a generation of  
firewall "administrators" seem to believe that 53/tcp is only ever  
used for zone transfers, and can safely be closed for all other use.

I suspect that a route with better practical implications will be for  
resolvers to pad queries with additional entropy as EDNS0 options, and  
to fall back to TCP if EDNS0 is unsupported. That requires some  
confidence that EDNS0 support in authority servers is widespread,  

draft-vixie-dnsext-dns0x20 describes a shorter-term option for  
introducing additional entropy into queries using UDP transport, with  
or without EDNS0.


More information about the NANOG mailing list