Hi Paul,

It seems to me that there are only two approaches here:

(a) standardise a way for DNS messages over UDP/IPv6 to be retained after 
sending in some predictable fashion so that they can be fragmented at source if 
necessary, or

(b) specify that when sending a DNS message over stateless transport where path 
MTU discovery is expected (over UDP over IPv6) the sender of the response MUST 
NOT send a message so large that fragmentation is possible.

Personally I think that (a) is simply reinventing the overhead of using 
stateful transports. Focusing on a wholesale move to those transports and 
giving up on large UDP messages is better than trying to bolt state as an 
afterthought onto UDP.


Joe

> On 13 Aug 2025, at 11:14, Paul Vixie <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Are we using the recent fragmentation avoidance rfc so soon? Mark, the 
> locally witnessed network MTU does not completely predict the full path MTU. 
> Plpmtud is and should remain in scope. Let's not close off a way to reach 
> reasonable datagram sizes in the future. Every 10x in speed should someday 
> show up as 3.333x in packet rate and 3.333x in packet size. We are using 
> tinygrams in comparison. What we do today will affect the possibilities 
> later. Vixie
> Paul Vixie
> Aug 5, 2025 03:30:00 Mark Andrews <[email protected]>:
> 
> draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-03 states: 
> 
>       If the requesting resolver is unable to process fragments, or if 
>       fragments are filtered on-path, resolution will fail over UDP. 
>       These issues are more prevalent for IPv6, as it no longer allows 
>       on-path hosts to fragment packets. Therefore, working Path MTU 
>       Discovery (PMTUD) is essential for IPv6 DNS-over-UDP packets to be 
>       fragmented to a size that allows them to traverse all segments on 
>       a path. 
> 
> This is not factually correct.  There is NO requirement to perform PMTUD 
> at all in a DNS server over IPv6.  For UDP you just fragment at network 
> MTU in the sending node at network MTU.  This can be achieved by using 
> IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU=1 socket option from RFC 3542 or using an interface that 
> is configured with a MTU that matches the network MTU.  For TCP you use 
> the socket option TCP_MAXSEG to set the MSS to the network MTU. 
> 
> Both of these options have been used for years in nameservers and avoid 
> response losses caused by attempting PMTUD itself. 
> 
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC 
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia 
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: [email protected] 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] 
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to