Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Tony Finch <d...@dotat.at> wrote:
> > If I understand it correctly, DTLS leaves MTU and fragmentation up to the
> > application protocol. The DNS has horrible packet size problems, so it
> > needs a lot more help than DTLS provides. QUIC is much better.
>
> Indeed. My point was simply that this avoids ordering problems, just as
> QUIC does. I suspect that it is worth having DNS-over-DTLS; QUIC is
> great, but based on what I’ve been seeing, quite a lot, and probably not
> appropriate for a lot of use cases where DNS-over-DTLS would do just
> fine.
It isn't so much ordering that is the problem, but not delaying answer B
when answer A suffers packet loss. I'm kind of curious about what the
relative trade-offs might be between DoQ and DoT with a decent SACK
implementation, when there is not much latency between the client and the
resolver. DNS-over-DTLS will need its own application layer retry
strategy. I kind of prefer the idea of DNS being able to re-use a good
off-the-shelf transport protocol rather than doing its own thing.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
Irish Sea: West or northwest 4 or 5. Smooth or slight. Showers. Good.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
