Aaron Campbell wrote:
> On 2013-09-11, at 2:30 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>> "A DNS UDP responder shall, when transmitting a message which does not
>> include embedded cryptographic marks such as TSIG or DNSSEC signatures, use
>> an effective DNS message payload size which is calculated as MIN(OF
On 2013-09-11, at 2:30 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> "A DNS UDP responder shall, when transmitting a message which does not
> include embedded cryptographic marks such as TSIG or DNSSEC signatures, use
> an effective DNS message payload size which is calculated as MIN(OFFERED,
> MIN(DISCOVERED, ESTI
On 11 Sep 2013, at 06:30, Paul Vixie wrote:
> excuse me, i left an edit out of my earlier proposal.
>
> This specification does not define a maximum for any future IP transport
> protocol, and so both initiators and responders should be prepared to
> receive messages as large as the 9 kilobyte e
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:14:04PM +0300,
Haya Shulman wrote
a message of 187 lines which said:
> > the trouble with randomizing the IPID is that this would require
> > kernel-level patches (as opposed to just DNS server software
> > upgrade), I believe. This makes it somewhat harder to deplo
