IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2671

bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com Wed, 23 December 2009 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bmanning@karoshi.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059AC3A68BB for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:59:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.829
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.829 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.770, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ano8kVkVcvC9 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:59:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vacation.karoshi.com (vacation.karoshi.com [198.32.6.68]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0473A69F0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:59:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from karoshi.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by vacation.karoshi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id nBNIwrHo029685; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:58:53 GMT
Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by karoshi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id nBNIwr0R029684; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:58:53 GMT
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:58:53 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com>
Message-ID: <20091223185853.GA29669@vacation.karoshi.com.>
References: <20091223183707.GA29415@vacation.karoshi.com.> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0912231346160.23855@newtla.xelerance.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0912231346160.23855@newtla.xelerance.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2671
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:59:12 -0000

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 01:46:58PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 
> >There has been some discussion of late about DNS MTU sizing and EDNS0 
> >"fall-back".
> >I've found another "culprit" in the program DNSMASQ - distributed with 
> >FedoraCore 10
> >and later versions of RedHat.
> >
> >to wit:
> >
> >      -P, --edns-packet-max=<size>
> >             Specify the largest EDNS.0 UDP packet which is supported  by  
> >             the  DNS  for-
> >             warder.  Defaults to 1280, which is the RFC2671-recommended 
> >             maximum for eth-
> >             ernet.
> >
> >Is there any interest in revisting this RFC or should we be happy with a 
> >functional limit
> >on EDNS0 message size being 1280 bytes?
> 
> I could talk to the Fedora maintainer to see if we can change the default
> using a /etc/sysconfig/dnsmasq parameter.
> 
> Paul

	that might work ... for this particular instance but who else will read
	that text and make the same choice for their application?

--bill

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email