Re: Where we stand and where we are going

[[e-mail]]

> 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