At 05:13 PM 8/3/00, =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCOzNLXE9CSScbKEI=?= wrote:
>Report on ENDS0 stuff:
>
>My proposal is to mandate EDNS0 for IPv6 transport. That is, DNS
>servers/resolvers MUST use EDNS0 if DNS querys/answers are carried
>over IPv6.
>
>There is another proposal from DNSEXT wg, described in
>draft-ietf-dnsext-message-size-00.txt. It is to mandate EDNS0 for A6.
>That is, DNS servers/resolvers MUST use EDNS0 if they support A6.
>
>In this morning, at the session of DNSEXT, Olafur Gudmundsson, one of
>co-chairs of the wg and the author of message-size, made presentation
>on message-size. I explained about my proposal after him.
>
>My proposal is DNS-transport oriented while Olafur's one is
>DNS-contents oriented. In other words, my proposal is IPv6 specific as
>Olafur's one is DNS specific. Impression is that we can pick up both
>proposals since they are not contradictional.
>
>Olafur suggested me that my proposal be included in "IPv6 Host
>Requirements", on which Marc Blanchet is working. There were no strong
>objections araised against this from those who were in the DNSEXT
>session.
>
>If there are no objections from IPNG wg, I will help Marc to get the
>draft out.
I discussed this with the IPng WG chairs yesterday, and
one of them suggested that the message-size draft actually mandate
EDNS0 for hosts with IPv6 installed. This is a stronger requirement
than I was willing to make, but the other chair suggested to
ask the working group if they thing this is a good idea.
And if they mind that DNSEXT starts dictating IPv6 host requirements.
>P.S.
>
>The minimum size of resolver's buffer is defined 1280 by both ENDS0
>and message-size. This means that UDP payload size can be 1280, so
>DNS/IPv6 would be fragmented at servers.
>
>Some of us believe that we need to change 1280 to a smaller
>value. Discussions are going on at the DNSEXT ml (namedroppers). If
>you are interested in this topic, please subscribe to the list.
Just for your information, 1280 was put in there hoping for input on
what is the LARGEST value we can get away and avoid fragmentation
by IPv6 most of the time.
DNSSEC is the main motivator for the draft, IPv6 is a beneficiary.
Discussions on what the value should take place on DNSEXT mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Discussions on if EDNS0 should be mandated for IPv6 capable hosts
should take place here on ipng mailing list.
Olafur
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
