Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt

[Fred Templin <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>]

Hello Thomas,

I'm just returning from vacation and catching up, but it seems
to me that the packet size issue could become important if we
expect that the DNS will return many AAAA, A, etc. records
for some FQDNs. Are there any limits on the number of RRs
per FQDN that may be stored in the DNS? And, is EDNS0
essential to support query responses when the size would
exceed 512 bytes?

Thanks - Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

Thomas Narten wrote:

> > > If I
> > > am correct, then, what would be the problem with listing EDNS0
> > > as a SHOULD? =20
> > >      
>  
> > None significant I can think of, though I'd like to hear other opinions.=20
> >    
> Perhaps the question to ask is whether support of EDNS0 is needed to
> make IPv6 work well enough. The thing that EDNS0 fixes that is of
> relevance here is the small packet size problem. In DNS, packets are
> restricted (by default) to be 512 bytes. With IPv6's bigger addresses,
> packet overflows are more likely to happen. If we expect this is going
> to be a problem, then the right thing to do is recommend use of EDNS0,
> even if it isn't widely deployed yet (and for ipv4, the packet size is
> less of an issue, hence less motivation/need for it there).
>
> Thomas
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------