On 09/21/2017 06:50 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
both ideas are wrong. what we have to do is arrange to fragment, using
the ipv6 extension header, all ipv6 udp, for a period of not less than
five years. noone who blocks ipv6 extension headers should be able to
get reliable ipv6 udp services. we have t
there is some evidence to suggest that two factors will drive increasingly
large responses. first is signing with multiple algorithms and second is
increases in key sizes. in a worst case model, we have to shift to
the McEliece
cryptosystem, post quantum crypto. for a standard selection of parame
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 09:50:24PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> what we have to do is arrange to fragment, using the
> ipv6 extension header, all ipv6 udp, for a period of not less than five
> years. noone who blocks ipv6 extension headers should be able to get
> reliable ipv6 udp services.
Davey Song(宋林健) wrote:
Thank you.
The large DNS response in IPv6 is a real problem. ATR is one option
to adopted in authoritative server alone. If someone or party have
more influence on both resolver and authoritative side (cloud and app
provider who can choose their own DNS resolution path)
Thank you.
The large DNS response in IPv6 is a real problem. ATR is one option to adopted
in authoritative server alone. If someone or party have more influence on both
resolver and authoritative side (cloud and app provider who can choose their
own DNS resolution path), Mukund’s proposal
Sorry, You are right.
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: Davey Song(宋林健) [mailto:ljs...@biigroup.cn]
> 发送时间: 2017年9月13日 17:56
> 收件人: 'Lanlan Pan'; 'Davey Song'
> 抄送: 'dnsop'
> 主题: 答复: [DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-song-atr-large-resp-00.txt
>
>
> > ATR make Authoritative Servers send normal big response p
> ATR make Authoritative Servers send normal big response packet before they
> try to send TC response for large RRsets ?
No. big response packet first, then TC response.
Davey
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi
