On Nov 28, 2014, at 1:25 AM, Davey Song <songlinj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, two pages is enough to address the problem with your suggestion. It > actually turns off the EDNS0 during Priming Exchange, right ?
No, not at all. EDNS0 is orthogonal to "must be able to use TCP as specified in RFC 1035". EDNS0 is useful, but not required, to get a full priming query back when using TCP. On Nov 28, 2014, at 2:48 AM, Davey Song <songlinj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I may misunderstood. If you only require resolver able to use TCP , is > there anything new? No, and that's exactly the point. > As far as I know, there are three exist problems in DNS protocol (not only > on Priming exchange), > > 1) IP-level udp fregment ( EDNS0 make it more frequently) > 2) No truncation for referral response which cause no TCP fallback for more > AAAA record of NS server(root serve in this case ) > 3) No larger size than 1500B for single UDP packets. None of which matter if the priming query is done over TCP. By saying "must be able to use TCP as specified in RFC 1035", you allow a recursive to start with UDP and try again on TCP if they see a truncated answer, *or* to try on TCP initially. This then becomes a configuration issue. > I only see TCP can overcome all those problems. and Priming Exchange is the > very occasion to firstly deploy TCP by default with much less price. And it > is promising to become a start to evaluation of upgrading the whole DNS > system for more reasons like DNS privacy and prevention of DDoS attack. Maybe have this document stay focused, and do not try to tack the latter on to the former in the document. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
