Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2671
Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com> Wed, 23 December 2009 18:47 UTC
Return-Path: <paul@xelerance.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 98C763A6A07 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:47:17 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lI8EBV3+NrSm for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:47:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from newtla.xelerance.com (newtla.xelerance.com [193.110.157.143]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC40A3A6843 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:47:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tla.xelerance.com (tla.xelerance.com [193.110.157.130]) by newtla.xelerance.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ABFB5710F; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:46:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:46:58 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com>
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
In-Reply-To: <20091223183707.GA29415@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0912231346160.23855@newtla.xelerance.com>
References: <20091223183707.GA29415@vacation.karoshi.com.>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: 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 23:29:07 -0000
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
- [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