Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-08.txt

That's exactly it.
It could be less but that would mean you would be *almost* better off without EDNS (you still would get the additional flag field). You would be adding overhead to the DNS packet while limiting the packet size to a smaller amount than plain DNS creating an increased potential for fallback to TCP

Joao

On 13 Feb 2012, at 10:27, Edward Lewis wrote:

> At 14:05 +0100 2/13/12, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:
> 
>> Why is: udpsize < 512 MUST be treated as 512 size?
> 
> My assumption:
> 
> 1) For ease of implementation
> 2) Because if the bufsize is too small, the header might not fit. ;)
> 
> There's a need to set a lower bound for bufsize large enough to allow for even a FORMERR response.  That's, what 12 bytes give or take, way less than 512, but the protocol is used to 512 as hard size limit.
> 
> Do you want/need to see 512 lowered?
> -- 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Edward Lewis
> NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468
> 
> 2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext