Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-00.txt

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 16 July 2020 13:37 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 02FE93A07A8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 06:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, 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 FP7SV1yyszkE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 06:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.142]) (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 545E23A0746 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 06:37:44 -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]:52662) by ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1jw44v-000N7R-8z (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:37:37 +0100
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:37:37 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
cc: Marek Majkowski <majek04@gmail.com>, dnsop@ietf.org, paul@redbarn.org
In-Reply-To: <67FB359B-77D2-421C-A0A7-CD2CF8C772E7@isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2007161422470.32181@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <159351340969.9763.13693079622434674195@ietfa.amsl.com> <20200708.170123.2054449579631699570.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> <CABzX+qw11H1JSWT6_EcVirT1LNd9Sxqm4zEyjSrDEqc3j2Cgbg@mail.gmail.com> <BE0E6F2E-3148-42DF-AA94-D8F5D9556055@isc.org> <CABzX+qx5+_OUNUNfX8i32iLj_RQWthdQ_KZ_aKXjKjh0L-9U_Q@mail.gmail.com> <67FB359B-77D2-421C-A0A7-CD2CF8C772E7@isc.org>
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/WiVpkgcpvIl5Cfv1jMAZ6Oa7HW4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-00.txt
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: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 13:37:46 -0000

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
> Also I forget how Geoff was actually performing the test.  Where any of
> the responses greater than the advertised EDNS buffer size sent?  Was
> fragmentation introduced when the UDP response size was less that 1280?

Just this morning I saw another report from Geoff mostly about IPv6 but
with a fair amount of discussion about fragmentation
https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2020-07/dns6.html

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Lyme Regis to Lands End including the Isles of Scilly: Westerly or
northwesterly 3 or 4, occasionally 5 near south Devon, becoming variable 2 to
4 later. Smooth or slight in east, slight or moderate in west. Fair. Good.