To:
keydist@cafax.se
From:
Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Date:
Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:24:48 -0500
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:17:24 PST." <p0510100bb860e797ece0@[165.227.249.20]>
Sender:
owner-keydist@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: From whence we came...
>>>>> "IMC" == IMC <Paul> writes:
IMC> 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.
IMC> OK, I admit that I am a bit naive about DNS politics. I thought that
IMC> the objection to >512 octets was regardless of EDNS0. That is, even
IMC> though the end systems are supposed to support longer packets, the
IMC> UDP fragmentation happens in the middle of the net, and the end
I think that there are significant advantages to keeping things in a single
packet, especially if is 1280 the real lower limit.
I also also seen that there are significant portions of the network where TCP port
53 has been closed. Clueless ISPs.
] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [