Measuring query latency of top level DNS servers

Authors:
Jinjin Liang;Jian Jiang;Haixin Duan;Kang Li;Jianping Wu
Affiliations:
Institute for Network Science and Cyberspace, Tsinghua University, China,Tsinghua National Laboratory on Information Science and Technology, China;Institute for Network Science and Cyberspace, Tsinghua University, China,Tsinghua National Laboratory on Information Science and Technology, China;Institute for Network Science and Cyberspace, Tsinghua University, China,Tsinghua National Laboratory on Information Science and Technology, China;Department of Computer Science, University of Georgia;Institute for Network Science and Cyberspace, Tsinghua University, China,Tsinghua National Laboratory on Information Science and Technology, China
Venue:
PAM'13 Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Passive and Active Measurement
Year:
2013

Citing 3
Cited 1

King: estimating latency between arbitrary internet end hosts

Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Internet measurment
Diversity in DNS performance measures

Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Internet measurment
A measurement-based deployment proposal for IP anycast

Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement

An empirical reexamination of global DNS behavior

Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2013 conference on SIGCOMM

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

We surveyed the latency of upper DNS hierarchy from 19593 vantage points around the world to investigate the impact of uneven distribution of top level DNS servers on end-user latency. Our findings included: 1) generally top level DNS servers served Internet users efficiently, with median latency 20.26ms for root, 42.64ms for .com/.net, 39.07ms for .org; 2) quality of service was uneven, Europe and North America were the best while Africa and South America were 3 to 6 times worse; 3) most of the root servers performed well in Europe and North America, but only F, J, L roots showed low query latency in other continents; 4) query latency of F and L roots showed that only about 60 resolvers were routed to the nearest anycast instances. We also revealed two problems that lead to constantly large query latency (6s~18s) for resolvers. One was buggy implementation of some resolvers on IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack hosts, the other was misconfigured middle-boxes that filtered large or fragmented DNSSEC packets.