To:
Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
Cc:
Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>, keydist@cafax.se
From:
Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
Date:
Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:17:24 -0800
In-Reply-To:
<sjmhepxy33g.fsf@indiana.mit.edu>
Sender:
owner-keydist@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: From whence we came...
At 9:43 PM -0500 1/7/02, Derek Atkins wrote: >I think we're already assuming EDNS0 and DNSSEC, which already requires >support for >512 bytes (and provides a way of negotiating support). >So, no, size is not (really) an issue. OK, I admit that I am a bit naive about DNS politics. I thought that the objection to >512 octets was regardless of EDNS0. That is, even though the end systems are supposed to support longer packets, the UDP fragmentation happens in the middle of the net, and the end systems fall back to TCP. The EDNS0 document is far from clear (even after many readings, which I have done wearing my IDN hat). So, are 2K-4K DNS responses OK now as long as they come in EDNS0? --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium