IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Slamming the TCP door, was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-02

Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> Mon, 20 June 2011 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <vixie@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE2611E80C5 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3eSKCJOwKHqb for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (nsa.vix.com [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:30::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B89611E808E for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nsa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E01A1051 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:44:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@isc.org)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nsa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D14CA103E for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:44:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@isc.org)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:44:07 -0400." <4DFF94F7.7050001@cisco.com>
References: <4DB81069.3080404@nic.cz> <4DF9B5BD.7010900@nic.cz> <a06240803ca1fd7525c50@10.31.201.23> <BANLkTinjRDHyKH-tLEoejodXb2+7qQLO7w@mail.gmail.com> <a06240801ca2102b8b4f2@10.31.201.23> <BANLkTikoVVaXF2_LJ3KHm6P7oFpfC+n2tw@mail.gmail.com> <a06240801ca21246f76de@10.31.201.23> <BANLkTinVfuL0WEYwaycTaAnWDS9vYF5NjQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DFEFBDE.4030303@nlnetlabs.nl> <1308572047.2742.37.camel@shane-desktop> <a06240801ca24edde2b90@[192.168.1.104]> <20110620125420.E9F9D10EF90C@drugs.dv.isc.org> <a06240802ca24f57df4ca@[192.168.128.30]> <4DFF91FD.9010508@cisco.com> <4DFF94F7.7050001@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:44:15 +0000
Message-ID: <5234.1308606255@nsa.vix.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Slamming the TCP door, was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-02
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:44:20 -0000

> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:44:07 -0400
> From: Josh Littlefield <joshl@cisco.com>
> 
> On 6/20/2011 2:31 PM, Josh Littlefield wrote:
> > I don't see why you would limit anything.  TCP framing does have a
> > per-message limit of 16K, due to the 2-byte length field.  But IXFR
> > already easily supports sending the full zone response, and there is
> > nothing wrong with that.
> 
> FYI: Of course, I meant 64K above.

in fairness to you, anything above 16K is useless, since compression
pointers are only 14 bits in size.  the change in header amortization
if you go above 16K is negligible compared to the loss of compression
reach.  so while you didn't mean 16K, it's actually a good TCP/53 limit
for things like IXFR/AXFR.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email