[dns-operations] DNS flag day 2020: Recommended EDNS buffer size discussion
jmaslak at antelope.net
Mon Sep 2 19:05:41 UTC 2019
I've used 1200 as well at a previous job with no issue for years (and it
was a big enough deployment if there were issues, they would have been
noticed). I do not recommend sending fragmented IPv6 packets (as suggested
elsewhere on this thread), as too many people block fragments on IPv6.
I'm not commenting on whether or not this should be a flag day, just that I
have a lot of experience with 1200 at scale and it seems to work fine. My
gut tells me 1220 would be fine too, I picked 1200 because I knew it was
safe even if I counted slightly wrong. :)
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:25 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat.com> wrote:
> * Jerry Lundström:
> > Hi all,
> > I have opened an issue that will serve as a public, open to all,
> > discussion forum for what the recommended EDNS buffer size should be
> > for DNS Flag Day 2020.
> > <https://github.com/dns-violations/dnsflagday/issues/125>
> >> Please note that the exact recommended EDNS buffer sizes have not been
> agreed upon, the current ballpark around 1200 (1220, 1232, …) is to limit
> the risk of fragmentation in IPv6.
> > Note that most of the text on dnsflagday.net mentions 1220 bytes.
> I personally have used 1200 bytes, but I can switch to 1220 if that's
> the consensus. Previously, the consensus was that fragments were good
> for the network (which I found rather odd).
> > Please feel free to voice your opinion!
> What about generating atomic fragments by default, to support stateless
> IPv6 UDP service? Or not generating atomic fragments under any
> circumstances? Would that be a separate discussion?
> dns-operations mailing list
> dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dns-operations