IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] draft-andrews-dnsext-udp-fragmentation-00.txt

Lawrence Conroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk> Fri, 16 December 2011 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231CF1F0C6A; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:31:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1324078285; bh=eBe8KLfDvQySkbEJ/hX9g0951VxpX8Bq03BAp374k5w=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=hz+mN0KZir+4Tz+E6DWXP2B4ngxdBE/uoXj2ZE2xsajcLwRQJPQa9MzAcSZoKX1h9 TFbm7hjnl4bxNjKf96gjYut7atWtXql7gjFE4pgsqlmBJah+b4Ig/AWSLGs7BHgi4M 5AOo1bqhW9gexY7GBQwgztmhVya65UtfpimFYLEs=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505A41F0C6A for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:31:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.024
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.575, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oiCxMArz31vf for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from insensate.co.uk (ghost.insensate.co.uk [213.152.49.121]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F641F0C53 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by insensate.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0732ECFC6; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:31:22 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at insensate.co.uk
Received: from insensate.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (psyche.insensate.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 91R4fgHmk0+f; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:31:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by insensate.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657A12ECFBB; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:31:21 +0000 (GMT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Lawrence Conroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4EEBBFE2.2040106@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:31:20 +0000
Message-Id: <049DBA39-ED02-4D95-A3E8-9778F2C6F8BD@insensate.co.uk>
References: <20111214054048.B7AA51A08E5C@drugs.dv.isc.org> <4EEBBFE2.2040106@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-andrews-dnsext-udp-fragmentation-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Ohta-san, folks,
I note the esteemed ICANN chair's contribution on this topic; RFC 1776.

Seriously, someone needs to ship a single doc on fragmentation and its
impact on DNS. Frankly, not for people on this list, but for everyone else.

all the best,
 Lawrence

On 16 Dec 2011, at 22:02, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
>> 	draft-andrews-dnsext-udp-fragmentation-00.txt was
>> 	formally submitted to the system.  Comments requested.
> 
> The following part of the draft:
> 
>  or restricing DNS/UDP
>  packets to no more than 1280 bytes including IPv6 headers.
> 
> should be
> 
>  or restricting DNS/UDP
>  packets to no more than 1280 bytes including IPv6 and
>  IPv6 extension headers.
> 
> because, in RFC2460, "IPv6 header" means 40B IP header only.
> 
> It should also be noted that IPv6 extension headers, some
> of which, such as fragmentation headers and mobility ones,
> MUST be inserted without application's discretion, can be
> (in theory) very long that there is no minimum message size
> guaranteed to be carried within a 1280B packet.
> 
> 					Masataka Ohta

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email