Re: [DNSOP] DNS without Fragmentation (UDP and DF bit set)

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Mon, 05 November 2018 18:53 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 D5B50130DC2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 10:53:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 U3Om5UpC8HfS for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 10:53:07 -0800 (PST)
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 195D81294D7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 10:53:06 -0800 (PST)
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]:43144) by ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1gJjzg-000nvu-fY (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Mon, 05 Nov 2018 18:53:00 +0000
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 18:53:00 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20181105.013607.854519297338098286.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811051846490.24450@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20181105.013607.854519297338098286.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JaLk2uMk94NLpexidNpx0NHH-vU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS without Fragmentation (UDP and DF bit set)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 18:53:10 -0000

fujiwara@jprs.co.jp <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>; wrote:

> DNS with TCP transport is enough, I think.

Yes, and I think there's a slightly deeper argument here. The DNS is
suffering from relatively poor transport protocol engineering.
Fragmentation and pMTUd woes are one aspect of it; bad tuning of timeouts
is another; and security, and privacy, etc.

Rather than wedging transport features into the DNS, a better strategy is
to use off-the-shelf transport layers, which have much greater investment
in expertise and engineering.

I'm looking forward to QUIC.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>;  http://dotat.at/
Biscay: Cyclonic becoming southwesterly, 6 to gale 8, occasionally severe gale
9 at first in south. Rough or very rough, occasionally moderate. Rain or
thundery showers. Good, occasionally poor.