Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-01.txt

[Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de>]

Ray Bellis wrote:

>> 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

"attempt to address"  !=  "achieve adherence"    :-)

It's still a long way to go.  Some folks need steadily repeated
sermon until they are going to believe, isn't it?   :-)

So reinforcing the requirement to support larger DNS packets
where full transparency of the network is not possible or desired
should be worth the effort, wherever it fits neatly into a document.

  Alfred.