-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Vixie wrote: >> From: David Conrad <[email protected]> >> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:45:58 -0700 >> >> Since time is quite short for folks to upgrade their servers and given >> some root server operators are financially / operationally / politically >> constrained in how they would go about doing the upgrade, it seems to me >> that current DNS implementations are exactly what we should be >> benchmarking. > > since time is short, i would prefer a server-side change, supported by a > spec change (which means this would head back to namedroppers@) whereby > (bufsize<1220 && DO=1) would be treated as (DO=0). i don't mind folks > retrying with TCP if they really need stuff, but i do mind folks using > TCP just because they're probing middlebox PMTU and blinding trying 512.
How do you define 'really need stuff' here? It sounds like you're saying we should do: EDNS0/UDP/4096 EDNS0/UDP/1220 EDNS0/TCP since by definition, I always "really need stuff." - --Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkqVq5MACgkQ+NNi0s9NRJ1BPwCgnkfMmpt17jaJtd06Wvjp1UHE 9CwAniFfdyW+sNFcF929RqRcA0m4K54u =zFQQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
