Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think you're underestimating the value of a switch to a multiplexing > facilitating protocol/transport. Once this has gotten its legs under it, I > suspect that this approach for connecting to caching resolver will perform > better than any of traditional upd/tcp connections or the tls/dtls > approaches DPRIVE created. DNS over TCP already supports out-of-order responses. The reason it has historically not performed very well is that server implementations have handled queries on a TCP connection serially rather than concurrently. But this is improving. BIND 9.11 (for example) supports concurrent queries with out-of-order responses over TCP and TCP fast open, so queries over TCP should perform well, and better than UDP for large responses. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode Faeroes, Southeast Iceland: Southeasterly 4 or 5, increasing 6 to gale 8 later. Moderate or rough, occasionally very rough later. Showers, rain later. Good, becoming moderate or poor later.