Subject: Re: [Design] Re: the KEY debate

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 17:21:58 -0500

on 8/7/2002 5:19 PM Jim Reid wrote:

> Well I fail to see how you can advance that position by making
> non-sequiturs about TCP window and cache sizes.

Luckily for me, I'm not.

Kindly refer to section of 4.2.2 of RFC 1035.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: 07 Aug 2002 18:23:55 -0400

Jim Reid <[email-masked]> writes:

> And the point you are making here is.....? Apart from needing some
> extra TCP headers, how would shifting more than 64k of data present a
> problem? [BTW it's the window size that has a 16-bit value in TCP.
> This has nothing to do with message size: a nebulous concept in a byte
> stream protocol like TCP.] And anyway, doesn't the TCP window scale
> option allow for *much* bigger windows than 64k?

Jim, Eric is right that DNS messages are limited to 64k (even with
TCP).  Perhaps EDNS1 can fix this (I don't know if EDNS0 does
offhand).

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       [email-masked]                        PGP key available

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:15:17 -0400

>TCP).  Perhaps EDNS1 can fix this (I don't know if EDNS0 does

I doubt that there's a way to fix the size limit.  In TCP, you lead 
with a two byte length field not present in UDP.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer