[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-01.txt
- To: Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
- Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-01.txt
- From: Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:00:46 +0000
- Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
- Domainkey-signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc: Subject:MIME-Version:X-Mailer:Message-ID:From:Date: X-MIMETrack:Content-Type; b=jK/bV1LVrHQecjXTyD3i11jwD0ZkYgAGmxkrnsiRqWWXj/leC3neIVbb m//K2JeJI8otES4mdahJINP7AdJPLQRAXaBGFy5/MpTugCK13V5sDlGwk n0HM/gqNrnP74tO;
- In-reply-to: <200910281344.OAA03343@TR-Sys.de>
- References: <200910281344.OAA03343@TR-Sys.de>
> Furthermore, it might be wise to request *middlebox* support for DNS
> packets of (at least?) 4096 octets *today*, over any DNS transport.
> It seems not reasonable to expect useful seamless deployment of any
> increase in the DNS packet size (via EDNS, TCP transport, 'upgraded'
> or IPv6-based UDP transport, or any future DNS transport) unless we
> *first* happen to achieve adherence at large to this requirement!
RFC 5625 does already attempt to address this.
Ray