Re: Where we stand and where we are going

bmanning@karoshi.com Wed, 03 July 2002 11:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-irnss-errors@lists.elistx.com>
Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0GYO00E016SCJ7@eListX.com> (original mail from ietf-irnss-moderator@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 03 Jul 2002 07:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0GYN00901RAGEY@eListX.com> for ietf-irnss-moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 03 Jul 2002 01:30:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0GYN00901RAGEX@eListX.com> for ietf-irnss-moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com) ; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 01:30:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0GYN00904RAFEU@eListX.com> for ietf-irnss-moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 03 Jul 2002 01:30:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0GYN00901RAFES@eListX.com> for ietf-irnss@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 03 Jul 2002 01:30:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0GYN00901RAFER@eListX.com> for ietf-irnss@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 03 Jul 2002 01:30:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vacation.karoshi.com (vacation.karoshi.com [198.32.6.20]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0GYN003KARAEK1@eListX.com> for ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 01:30:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by vacation.karoshi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA30442; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 05:24:17 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 05:24:17 +0000 (UCT)
From: bmanning@karoshi.com
Subject: Re: Where we stand and where we are going
In-reply-to: <20020627091917.F24592@bailey.dscga.com>
To: michael@neonym.net
Cc: sra+irnss@hactrn.net (Rob Austein), ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com
Message-id: <200207030524.FAA30442@vacation.karoshi.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-irnss-help@lists.elistx.com>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.elistx.com/ob/adm.pl>, <mailto:ietf-irnss-request@lists.elistx.com?body=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.elistx.com/ob/adm.pl>, <mailto:ietf-irnss-request@lists.elistx.com?body=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-irnss/>
List-Help: <http://lists.elistx.com/elists/admin.shtml>, <mailto:ietf-irnss-request@lists.elistx.com?body=help>
List-Id: <ietf-irnss.lists.elistx.com>

> I have had two instances where the usage profile of a protocol suggests
> that 99% of the responses will be less than 2K and the interaction is
> stateless and connection-less. Inheriting the full session semantics of TCP
> isn't required. But neither is the sad state of UDP packet size limitations.
> 
> My proposed solution is to limit UDP packet sizes to 512 bytes and put
> packet sequence numbers on them. You still have a connectionless interaction
> but it a) puts the packet size into a realm with a higher probability of
> success and b) allows for a handful of those packets to get through. I'm
> not sure if you need more than that. You can still do the "well if 
> that didn't work I can always do TCP"...
> 
> I really would like to hear some definitive answers on this topic because
> it keeps coming up and a solution would make a heck of a lot of sense.
> 
> -MM

	Jumping in before reading the rest of the thread...
	I've seen that w/ DNSSEC, the DNS query/response
	profile shifts from short query/short response
	to short query/massive response, not unlike HTTP
	traffic profiles.  YMMV
	Two, Rob is pretty much dead on w/ where to do 
	UDP frag checking.  Or... why not 1280 instead of
	512?  :)

--bill