IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [dnsext] Computerworld apparently has changed DNS protocol

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> Wed, 04 November 2009 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
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 D996C3A6892 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:29:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.885
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 3TEGV2a27I0D for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB0A3A67B3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1N5mUc-0004FT-Tc; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:30:11 +0100
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>) id 1N5mUc-00008h-BV; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:30:10 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
References: <200911041858.TAA24009@TR-Sys.de>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:30:10 +0100
In-Reply-To: <200911041858.TAA24009@TR-Sys.de> ("Alfred Hönes"'s message of "Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:58:41 +0100 (MEZ)")
Message-ID: <87639qrq25.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [dnsext] Computerworld apparently has changed DNS protocol
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, 04 Nov 2009 20:29:52 -0000

* Alfred Hönes:

> There must be a hidden trick to introduce DNS Jumbograms we just
> forgot to mention ....

The claims about firewall issues seems dubious to me.  It's certainly
not the 512 byte limit which is a problem here---I think we've got
pretty good empiric evidence that it's not a problem anymore.  Several
root responses are already larger than 512 bytes, and you can't send
mail to AOL or Yahoo if you're behind a firewall that swallows
responses larger than 512 bytes.  People tend to fix such things,
especially if the Internet is a new thing to them and they want to
communicate with each other, instead of merely being right and
protocol compliant.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email