Mark Andrews wrote:
>> But, the problem of current IPv6 specification allows for very
>> long extension headers (more than 60KB is allowed), some of
>> which are automatically inserted not under transport/application
>> layer control.
>
> So? Fragmented packets *do* get through the network. Where they
> don't it slows up DNS resolution and the firewall usually gets fixed
> to allow fragments.
Yes, hopefully within a decade or two, some firewall maybe
fixed. So?
> As for 60K headers, I'll worry about them when they start happening.
I know most of you have been short sighted to expect too
much in the future.
But, even today, how much, in your opinion, is the assured-to-be-
safe DNS message size over IPv6 with 1280B of MTU?
Masataka Ohta
>
>> So, as Fernando Gont wrote:
>>>> While this issue/question may be currently masqueraded by the fact
>>> that we still have IPv4, I wonder what's "the plan" for the IPv6 case
>>> (at some point, we'll have to rely on whatever such plan is).
>>
>> The first thing to do is to obsolete extension headers and
>> related gotcha in IPv6 specification.
>>
>> Even a fragmentation header has annoying requirement.
>> Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
