IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] Re: [v6ops] Re: Carrying large DNS packets over UDP in IPv6 networks

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Sun, 16 June 2024 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F0FC180B7C; Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0pi5J2plhSHA; Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2F46C180B7B; Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7AE1BD3D; Sun, 16 Jun 2024 19:30:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h= mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject :to:cc:content-type; s=sasl; bh=jHoVrA3Vn7kM5Vl7OvonhaTjS3pZ8KsD oisv5Fn3h+g=; b=dMGURvbQREjEdwURPyPfCEDhrzXh0os62rFDuq1BwSBUBZpf afCCdxLiwL++rvB8mRj51Ke9+j3/yqZPlXsSCUtHAHPVnkUlBJ6OOL3hxqd9WW0B MlSO57H0JxUGRSpp4MggmvBTkjJUvdplweZwvvj804vnEMgyC/M7fCZbSkY=
Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C1C1BD3B; Sun, 16 Jun 2024 19:30:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-lj1-f177.google.com (unknown [209.85.208.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E5071BD02; Sun, 16 Jun 2024 19:30:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-lj1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2eabd22d3f4so45655181fa.1; Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWlTX0WG3XB7nkjbi/PDds/G369ZfNiFNDb2a0NSKkXZb5QI3vuBBaFYXE+Arq5c6iN7RGwofMy2X7Wcfh+IgxeF01NEhVvmfdk8y1dvFY=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzpFMsvD4hky7Ep2+yIeMh40fOYt7slPHJcvFVuvNPibfpamwM4 Vk3IN0TO2dcQDiJF8x+J/65ryyVXUF6+CFcSMhav7JVDqY6BDGtnT4w7yvz/Aq/XllnFZlcNxrA TqcWC4qFeiGRUr17c3RD8Y7uTPcw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGi+geA4P0CAphgnUTjkopOw7oJgiSeFJRoZGocysaEVw+GOFxdTDUIZdPRAwY8IHZsVyvM7SEXfpAjFCpSPiM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0ed:0:b0:2ea:ebc6:d9c with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec0e5c6594mr46416581fa.18.1718580612331; Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E35DC12F-D1CE-4AE5-B155-612C639A348B@gmail.com> <DU2PR02MB10160CCA998D5A86B9F11F2C388C22@DU2PR02MB10160.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CACL_3VGzQfn9Gp+Wvx6HDZt=Gbyurirgt8Sa3qah7TpNgLiQug@mail.gmail.com> <BAEBA468-9B3E-41ED-B609-1D0A9D4A0F6E@gmail.com> <Zm81hsg9-O6A3GCQ@Space.Net> <fd1db63a-b735-4906-9416-80a118be15dc@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fd1db63a-b735-4906-9416-80a118be15dc@gmail.com>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:30:02 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VHkbVeno3i+T6saWCoVQnvmgvwxAWG34YK9EoHBubmPHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VHkbVeno3i+T6saWCoVQnvmgvwxAWG34YK9EoHBubmPHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ea8a81061b0a3a46"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 626A12BC-2C38-11EF-A758-DFF1FEA446E2-06080547!pb-smtp21.pobox.com
Message-ID-Hash: 3I5OWF6EO32FSDOXJGTY7XH4BOK2MQCI
X-Message-ID-Hash: 3I5OWF6EO32FSDOXJGTY7XH4BOK2MQCI
X-MailFrom: heard@pobox.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tsvwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [tsvwg] Re: [v6ops] Re: Carrying large DNS packets over UDP in IPv6 networks
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zDLC1FJVY1SI0grISmNB-OXhga8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tsvwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-leave@ietf.org>

On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 1:03 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> > I don't think a v6ops document should venture into DNS transport
> > recommendations - especially as the question "TCP or QUIC" is, basically,
> > independent of the underlying IP protocol (IPv4 fragments are not safe
> > from eaten by intermediate grue).
>
>  From Geoff's observations, I'm not sure that's true - that is, the best
> practice for DNS/IPv4 probably differs from the best practice for DNS/IPv6.
>

That is correct, and one can see the evidence not just in Geoff's excellent
presentation at IETF 119 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-v6ops-operational-issues-00.pdf
for
those who missed it) but in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation#name-on-path-fragmentation-on-ip

Also, whether the final document(s) come out of v6ops or dnsop (or even
> tsvwg) is secondary to whether they say the right things. Perhaps we could
> ask the various WG chairs to coordinate?
>

Excellent idea; it might help to push draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation
out the door.

Mike Heard

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status