[DNSOP] RFC 2671
bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com Wed, 23 December 2009 18:37 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 0019A3A6A24 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:37:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.641
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.456, BAYES_40=-0.185, 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 L7NQdkny29Aj for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:37:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vacation.karoshi.com (vacation.karoshi.com [198.32.6.68]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D72A3A6A0B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:37:33 -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 nBNIbBHo029517; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:37:11 GMT
Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by karoshi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id nBNIb7gE029516; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:37:07 GMT
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:37:07 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20091223183707.GA29415@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject: [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 18:40:48 -0000
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?
--bill
- [DNSOP] RFC 2671 bmanning
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2671 bmanning
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2671 Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2671 Masataka Ohta
- Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2671 Francis Dupont