From: k...@wide.ad.jp Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-01 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 04:49:55 +0900 (JST)
> > From: k...@wide.ad.jp > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-01 > Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 04:33:41 +0900 (JST) > >> >> From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> >> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-01 >> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 14:18:59 -0500 >> >>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Evan Hunt <e...@isc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 03:53:27PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote: >>>>> I think you mean "common queries over UDP" since AXFR over TCP isn't a >>>>> thing :-) >>>> >>>> Or rather AXFR over UDP isn't. TCP is mandatory for *XFR. >>> >>> Where is that requirement made? The only thing I see in RFC 5936 is that >>> AXFR over UDP is not defined. >> >> Section 4.3.5 of RFC1034 says: "Because accuracy is essential, TCP or >> some other reliable protocol must be used for AXFR requests." >> >> -- Akira Kato > > The current root zone size in the wire format is 539,248 byte. Provided > if MTU is 1500, it consists of 367 fragments in UDP. Even if AXFR over > UDP is allowed, it may not be practical to assume such number of fragments > get delivered without any packet loss especially over a satellite link > which is an use case of the draft. Retries could also be fail in this > case. > > -- Akira Kato Sorry, I forgot that maximum message size of UDP was 65535. So discussion of AXFR over UDP doesn't make sense as long as we are talking about the root zone. -- Akira Kato _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
