<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">08.03.2019 00:18, Joe Abley пишет:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5FDD3F9D-3E4F-43E5-90F5-57D19B9D6DF5@hopcount.ca">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Yuri,
On 7 Mar 2019, at 11:19, Yuri via Unbound-users <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:unbound-users@nlnetlabs.nl"><unbound-users@nlnetlabs.nl></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">2. explain why you need it in Unbound.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
WCCP supports not only 80 port, but also 53 (and any arbitrary port) ans
very useful for transparent interception any traffic and locally cache
it on separate server.
Thus, technology can drastically reduce outboud internet traffic and/or
increases LAN security.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I was an early beta-tester of cisco's original cache engine back in the 90s, back when I think the programme was being run by Barry Greene out of Singapore. Transparent caching of web objects made a lot of sense for us since we were severely bandwidth-constrained in New Zealand in advance of southern cross being lit. There were all kinds of bandwidth-conserving shenanigans going on at the time.</pre>
</blockquote>
<span class="tlid-translation translation"><span title="" class="">Saving
bandwidth makes sense in all cases when Internet traffic is sold
in batches (in fact, truly unlimited traffic, if it exists,
costs absolutely impossible money).</span></span>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5FDD3F9D-3E4F-43E5-90F5-57D19B9D6DF5@hopcount.ca">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
However, I don't know that the same advantages would have existed (or do exist, today) for the DNS.
DNS is not generally a significant contributor to traffic volume so long as the DDoS klaxons are not sounding, so the "reduce outbound internet traffic" argument is not especially compelling (nor inbound; I'm not sure why you call out outbound). Increasing LAN security is even more dubious, I think.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="text-wrap tlid-copy-target">
<div class="result-shield-container tlid-copy-target"><span
class="tlid-translation translation"><span title="">In fact, I
meant both types of traffic.</span> <span title="">Both
incoming and outgoing.</span> <span title="">Imagine a
business center (building), with two dozen companies (not
users).</span> <span title="">At the moment we have one
Internet channel 10 Mbit.</span> <span title="" class="">To
all consumers.</span></span><span
class="tlid-translation-gender-indicator
translation-gender-indicator"></span></div>
<div class="result-shield-container tlid-copy-target"><br>
</div>
<div class="result-shield-container tlid-copy-target">By our CIsco
statistics, we're have up to 10-20% DNS requests overall
bandwith. So, you already see, yes? This is why we're uses only
Unbound, this is why we're intercepting 53 port (whenever user
devices settings).<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5FDD3F9D-3E4F-43E5-90F5-57D19B9D6DF5@hopcount.ca">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
In general, DNS involves a number of subtly different protocols, all co-specified but not the same. Transparently proxying a query intended for an authoritative server to a resolver can cause problems (e.g. with RD and AA signalling). Delivering a DNS UPDATE message to the wrong server is going to break the intended behaviour. The only really safe way to avoid these kinds of pitfalls is to not do transparent proxying at all.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Our solution (with PBR interception) works approx. from 2011
year. No issues you describing. <br>
</p>
<p><span class="tlid-translation translation"><span title="">Since
the DNS traffic is taken from our cache with a pure content,
we guarantee the absence of provider hijacking (which is
always performed in our country).</span> <span title="">In
addition, we completely control Internet traffic by blocking
some of the advertising (and malware) in the local area of
Unbound.</span> <span title="">For security this is directly
related.</span> <span title="" class="">This is an obvious
application, on my opinion.</span></span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5FDD3F9D-3E4F-43E5-90F5-57D19B9D6DF5@hopcount.ca">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
If the goal was to use WCCP as a clustering technique without transparent proxying, hashing the (QNAME, QCLASS, QTYPE) tuple across a set of origin servers in order to minimise cache misses, that might be interesting, but it's not clear to me that WCCP is the right way to do that (but perhaps I'm not thinking hard enough about it).</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><span class="tlid-translation translation"><span title=""
class="">I have already described the goals above. DNS
failover is completely enough for HA. But - I repeat - WCCP
performs on control plane, instead PBR, which performs on CPU
<i>and sometimes eats it up.</i></span></span></p>
<p><span class="tlid-translation translation"><span title="">This is
the reason why I would like to see support for this protocol.</span>
<span title="" class="">As far as I know, SQUID has support for
both versions of this protocol for over 10 years (we are
actively using it now).</span> <span title="" class="">I see
no reason why this support could not be realized in Unbound.</span></span></p>
<p><span class="tlid-translation translation"><span title=""
class="">Actually, I do not insist.</span> <span title=""
class="">I just asked a question.</span> <span title=""
class="">I was not going to give lectures or teach anyone at
all.</span> <span title="" class="">In principle, I do not
care enough whether there will be support or not.</span> <span
title="" class="">I just think that "it would be nice to have"
rather than "we will never do it, because personally we do not
see <b>strong enough</b> reason for doing this."</span> <span
title="" class=""><br>
</span></span></p>
<p><span class="tlid-translation translation"><span title=""
class="">That’s all.</span></span></p>
<p><span class="tlid-translation translation"><span title=""
class="">Thank you.</span></span><br>
<span class="tlid-translation translation"><span title="" class=""></span></span></p>
<p><span class="tlid-translation translation"><span title=""
class=""></span></span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5FDD3F9D-3E4F-43E5-90F5-57D19B9D6DF5@hopcount.ca">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Joe
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"C++ seems like a language suitable for firing other people's legs."
*****************************
* C++20 : Bug to the future *
*****************************</pre>
</body>
</html>