Re: [DNSOP] 答复: 答复: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-song-atr-large-resp-00.txt

Paul Vixie <> Fri, 22 September 2017 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D812F13339D for <>; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pFgS-9Q8fPo8 for <>; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27429132076 for <>; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 406B261FA2; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 02:31:29 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:31:29 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.19 (Windows/20170908)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "\"Davey Song(宋林健)\"" <>
CC: 'dnsop' <>
References: <> <> <> <045b01d33288$d3fadad0$7bf09070$@cn>+5DE3FF4CB4E4721A <> <048701d332a8$6f944980$4ebcdc80$@cn>+1004318D79D4A4F6
In-Reply-To: <048701d332a8$6f944980$4ebcdc80$@cn>+1004318D79D4A4F6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] 答复: 答复: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-song-atr-large-resp-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 02:31:32 -0000

Davey Song(宋林健) wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> I know you suggest expose the problem and let the trouble maker
> feeling the pain themselves. But return to the specific issue, from
> APNIC's measurement the ASes in the path are dropping the fragments,
> rather than end ASes. From these ASes' view , it's your pain not
> theirs.

it's a question of first mover advantage. EDNS will never be fully 
deployed, because of the middleboxes built before 1999 who "know" what a 
UDP/53 datagram has to look like, and which disallow ADCOUNT>0 && QR=0.

we can, if we wish, continue to standardize one protocol, watch as the 
world deploys a different one, and still pretent that our effort was 
worthwhile. however, this would fit the technical definition of 
"insanity", and i urge that we avoid this course of action.

> In another word, we are facing the fragmented and uncooperative
> Internet. What should we do ? It is very hard to coordinate all parts
> and networks. DNS is a field with lots of tussle.

we need a kernel option for various open source operating systems which 
causes all UDP to be fragmented at 512 octets of payload. for ipv4, so 
that we can hard-smash every middlebox which still prevents EDNS from 
being deployed, and for ipv6 also, so that we can hard-smash any middle 
or edge network who won't carry ipv6 extension headers.

and we need to turn this on everywhere. root, gtld, cctld, recursives, 
authoriatives,, opendns... Everywhere. with a press release to 
pre-announce the flag day.

if we're not going to stand up for the standards we write, then we 
should admit that nothing except tcp/80 will work, and avoid all else.

P Vixie