I forgot to mention willingness to contribute text. Here is one suggestion: Add to section 3 (or under 3.1) text to the effect of:
The recursive resolver SHOULD ensure that the reassembly size advertised is below the threshold in its immediate network vicinity. Specifically, if a response with the DF bit set and packet size of the reassembly size advertised exceeds any MTU, the packet will be dropped by the network. This could be the result of the resolver's LAN segment, or its upstream WAN link(s) within the resolver's ASN, or even an upstream ISP's WAN link(s). Repeated failures to multiple priming addresses MAY require the resolver to use a smaller reassembly size in order to receive a response. This is definitely a corner case (possibly to be included in the avoid-fragmentation draft as well), but particularly for priming queries, instances of this failure mode may not be resolved by any other means beyond reducing the advertised size or retrying over TCP. Brian On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 7:04 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
