[dns-operations] DNS flag day 2020 update

[Puneet Sood]

+1 to running the probes again.

Thanks in advance.

-Puneet

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 7:14 AM Willem Toorop <willem at nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
>
> Op 25-03-2020 om 09:27 schreef Paul Vixie:
> > On Wednesday, 25 March 2020 07:41:51 UTC Petr Špaček wrote:
> >> Hello DNS operators!
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Are you a DNS vendor, operator, firewall vendor or service provider and want
> >> to improve on DNS resilience?
> >
> > yes.
> >
> >> Then ready our guidelines on "Message Size Considerations" for EDNS [3] to
> >> reduce or even avoid fragmentation of the DNS and please allow DNS over
> >> TCP!
> >>
> >> [3] https://dnsflagday.net/2020/#message-size-considerations
> >
> > from [3]:
> >
> > "An EDNS buffer size of 1232 bytes will avoid fragmentation on nearly all
> > current networks. This is based on an MTU of 1280, which is required by the
> > IPv6 specification, minus 48 bytes for the IPv6 and UDP headers."
> >
> > many of us are successfully using 1400 or larger. the MTU value of 1280 that
> > this calculation is based on, was arbitrarily chosen in the IPv6
> > specification, and no real network operates with this limit. the 48 byte
> > subtrahend was arbitrarily chosen without leaving room for IP6 options. this
> > never matters for TCP because TCP knows the size of the IP6 options that will
> > be used. this in turn never matters because the internet's effective MTU is
> > ~1500.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I did measure MTU's available to resolvers on RIPE Atlas in June 2013
> and presented results then at RIPE67:
>
> https://nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/presentations/20131016-RIPE67-pmtud4dns.pdf
>
> At that time there were 1029 RIPE Atlas probes, which combined had 863
> IPv6 capable resolvers.  411 of those (51%) had MTU smaller than 1500.
> 115 had an MTU of 1280.  On slide 17 of the presentation you can see the
> the different detected MTU's at that time.
>
> Maybe it's worthwhile to redo those measurements again with the 16000
> IPv6 capable resolvers that we can target on RIPE Atlas right now.
>
>
> -- Willem
>
> >
> > a less-arbitrary value would be better. those of us using 1400 do so because
> > we want to leave room for IP6 options as well as tunnel overhead.
> >
> > please reconsider the further use of the number 1280, which was made
> > deliberately small because of the unrealistic expectation that all IP6 flows
> > would be governed by PMTUD. no real network today operates with this MTU size.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> dns-operations mailing list
> dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations