To:
users@ipv6.org, dnsop@cafax.se, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From:
"Matt Crawford" <crawdad@fnal.gov>
Date:
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:49:26 -0600
In-reply-to:
Your message of Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:27:28 EST. <87lms7f4pb.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: IPv6 dns
> The issue is not the vintage of the resolver -- it is a UDP datagram > length problem. We assume a much larger v6 datagram can get through > without the risk of fragmentation. I can't believe the consideration that led to the nonsensical limit of 512 was the risk of fragmentation in transit. I'm sure it must have been the receiver's ability to reassemble. (The logic leading to 512 is still flawed, but it's much closer.)