Re: [RFC] unbound: Increase timeout value for unknown dns-server

[Paul Simmons <mbatranch@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1728 bytes --]

On 1/25/21 1:23 PM, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> So what does that leave us with?
>
> Should we drop the patch because it does not change anything and the correct solution would be using TCP as underlying protocol?
>
> -Michael
>
>> On 19 Jan 2021, at 06:22, Paul Simmons <mbatranch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/16/21 2:13 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 09:02:08PM -0600, Paul Simmons (mbatranch(a)gmail.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> echo 'unknown-server-time-limit: 1128' >/etc/unbound/local.d/timeouts
>>>> I've found that UDP doesn't work at all.  TCP with "timeout" mod never
>>>> fails.
>>> You might also try if UDP works with
>>>
>>> delay-close: 1500
>>>
>>> instead of or in addition to the unknown-server-time-limit.
>>>
>> Howdy!
>>
>> I tried UDP with both mods ('unknown-server-time-limit: 1128' && 'delay-close: 1500').  Unfortunately, I experienced intermittent resolution errors.
>>
>> Am now using TCP...  no apparent errors, but resolution is SssLllOooWww, just as before.
>> (total.recursion.time.avg=4.433958 total.recursion.time.median=3.65429 total.num.recursivereplies=1515)
>>
>> Thank you for your efforts.  Latency on "HughesNot" is insurmountable, but (barely) beats no connectivity.  I hope to try Starlink, if/when it becomes available for my latitude (30.9 North).
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> -- 
>> It is hard for an empty bag to stand upright.  -- Benjamin Franklin, 1757
>>
I haven't studied the metrics from unbound, so can't say if the modified 
timeouts help to avoid retransmissions.

As of this moment, TCP works, albeit slowly.  If you'd rather drop the 
patch, I'm okay with that.

Thanks for all the effort!

Paul