IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] avoiding fragmented DNS-over-UDP

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 21 March 2018 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDF912E041 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lWpjU3dg8Fhf for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1283312E05C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:39608) by ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1eygkB-000AON-f3 (Exim 4.89_2) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:37:43 +0000
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:37:43 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20180321162619.GA15674@jurassic>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803211634300.16909@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803211607160.16357@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20180321162619.GA15674@jurassic>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JDQr2n2WcESsMJYHjD9qw6MTOek>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] avoiding fragmented DNS-over-UDP
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 21 Mar 2018 16:37:55 -0000

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org> wrote:
>
> Some topics in the same area:

Thanks for your thoughts :-)

WRT Bert's camel, the draft I have in mind is just implementation advice
within the existing protocol. Part of the idea is to reduce fragmentation
in the presence of old deployed software, e.g. new client uses a small
buffer to avoid provoking fragments from an old server; new server uses a
small response despite a large buffer from an old client.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Trafalgar: Northerly or northeasterly 5 to 7, occasionally 4 later, becoming
variable 3 or 4 in northwest. Rough, occasionally moderate. Fair. Good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email