IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Clarification question: compression pointers always to names earlier in the packet?

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Thu, 25 October 2018 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 848B3130DE4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 rBr20UwVG4pq for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 104DA12F18C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id y16so7662295wrw.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=U/D85LWeSBJ4mnLnzIK0LP8W38fdpNyN6soA0OV8C7Y=; b=ByPGpRmLRbEE9L7VTFzkUiVBJGP6WviJTZWHuTsttH517tiw4fSTEmKweLl8rLdA+b KzBPFqoIIEvv+K3kjy9gGfPdvc5JuWSdAF4nGi71OSOPCfMbqX/tH4YscHxEQW5XbAEn 3PIIQhfoecsD2JDobolBp6k1TSbl2dde4XM5fHtrZpv967kjox1OvNIu1uidr2ORDYIi NpiJhxsw1p1C5pWM1BDAitNaYgGbz6Z5FICcV5GImxFhosYrjRJroclwHcati1Mp77dN YqtCfpWbNyXQm4M4/igS1c4wSIDT6iBhIOmw9hhl6/YtFoOo9mdIEZ1Kq6Cf5FkHQe5p xWvA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=U/D85LWeSBJ4mnLnzIK0LP8W38fdpNyN6soA0OV8C7Y=; b=gnamyy6jABd1xqq+QF9boUpMPdyvSj84rTr+ou4Lg4B/5X4upSuBuQnIZOOxlTzSKe BBLLJiAVYsulswM+6ZBpqk3Gg14G+AiScPnX48jAy2pwltTY1V+Tun7GJIYfBUxh9yU1 odVgHwgOwaI0XYmczuedQM/CYxy3UEAVHImkWmkHZ7r2U0OBDUgGUdnHdd+YWxPSFRcj y73mjvG4N4SSZCXNazIAQPnRZdCfAis7d9PZzm0frHn2kTMuN+nden7qYZM4NHq0MQsj TA5I/SloPvz00FyELEIq4kUqDGOW+iettho5m4qiVoVnqgMPA+3iZe/DoMPsHCmI171B uMyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gKKdY7Esx730IoiQWHO2eI1jMEvUnDhamWJ3c97bVxPqbU+awhe 1UOOddw3IFcp7MCTb1kbb0xEtC8PWenIK1okrgOkwQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cBAVxUuCyQT3M549H1z8Fkv8jlhF0mQ2Hj9eHCbXVpjEPW3SnrWnSSJPhfBcB2Tl61N81aN+0S+e8FPE8aoFE=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6a05:: with SMTP id m5-v6mr2194048wru.5.1540437724486; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BC2CDF40-4FF0-4111-88B7-04969491D2E0@dukhovni.org> <EC514300-F235-41DB-A413-2F9F8F8B04C8@sinodun.com> <f3c89916-6622-c153-f662-9ac42b61d81c@time-travellers.org> <CAPt1N1nq2-9NxoGSg3M+XHehAeT47A5T1w54vvmG=83j-hRoUw@mail.gmail.com> <20181025030926.GA15675@jurassic>
In-Reply-To: <20181025030926.GA15675@jurassic>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:21:52 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn05NHqMPQzZ-xDsApkrr00fSKf8JH26zb=K529hYOaWeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: muks@mukund.org
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YybwjFhtfIGl6FbcKTu95r5L1tE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Clarification question: compression pointers always to names earlier in the packet?
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, 25 Oct 2018 03:22:09 -0000

As long as we're in UDP, with DNSSEC, and many NS, packetsize in DNS
will be a "thing" and revoking label compression pushes to fragments
and/or TCP.

Personally, I think TCP is fine, and the emergence of long-lived
bindings in DNS is fine, and this is a bit overblown as a problem.
But, I get reminded by people just how long, deep and *old* the CPE
embedded DNS footprint is. Which believes UDP at 512 is a "thing"

So basically, yes: you can turn it off. But. Is it wise?

-G

v2.1.17 | Report a Bug | By Email