IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] draft-mohan-dns-query-xml-00.txt

"Michael Sheldon" <msheldon@godaddy.com> Tue, 04 October 2011 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <msheldon@godaddy.com>
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 05BE821F8EE0 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CtYuGgQrhczs for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpoutwbe05.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpoutwbe05.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [208.109.78.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3671621F8ED9 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 20595 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2011 21:39:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO gem-wbe09.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) (64.202.189.48) by smtpoutwbe05.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net with SMTP; 4 Oct 2011 21:39:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 18813 invoked by uid 99); 4 Oct 2011 21:39:48 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Originating-IP: 172.19.38.143
User-Agent: Web-Based Email 5.6.02
Message-Id: <20111004143947.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.04bcda2f2f.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
From: Michael Sheldon <msheldon@godaddy.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:39:47 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-mohan-dns-query-xml-00.txt
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:36:44 -0000


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-mohan-dns-query-xml-00.txt
> From: Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-mohan-dns-query-xml-00.txt Date: Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 12:40:50PM +0100 Quoting Alex Bligh (alex@alex.org.uk):
> > 
> > 
> > --On 4 October 2011 12:04:42 +0100 Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
> > 
> > >You can't increase the DNS message size beyond 64KB.
> > 
> > I was under the (mis) apprehension that was a UDP limitation, and that
> > large AFXRs could exceed 64KB. Live and learn.
> 
> I've done AXFRen of 1/2 GB zones. Not practical, but doable. The 64K
> limit does not apply to AXFR, but, then again, AXFR is not like the
> other children...
> 

The 64K DNS message limit applies to *all* TCP transactions. The TCP
length field is the limiting factor at two bytes. AXFR gets around this
by using multiple DNS messages, but it is still limited to 64K per
message.

*IF* this proposal survives, I agree with the suggestion that we keep it
as close to the current model as possible.

That said, I haven't seen any compelling reason to support a protocol
change that seems solely for the purpose of fixing other people's
network mis-configurations.

Michael Sheldon
Dev-DNS Services
GoDaddy.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email