nanog mailing list archives
Re: Broken PMTUD for . + TLD servers, was: Re: Smallest Transit MTU
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:39:54 +0100
On 10-jan-05, at 0:08, Mark Andrews wrote:
Well DNS (not EDNS) is limited to 512 octets so you unless there are real links (not ones artificially constrained to demonstrate a issue) this should not be a issue in practice.
No, fortunately not. But it's still VERY wrong and it must be fixed.
Note for IPv6 one sets IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU on the UDP socket so this should be a non-issue there.
In IPv6 PMTUD is handled at the IP layer so the second packet that's too large will be fragmented at the source, so there is no issue.
Current thread:
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Sabri Berisha (Jan 05)
- Broken PMTUD for . + TLD servers, was: Re: Smallest Transit MTU Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jan 09)
- Re: Broken PMTUD for . + TLD servers, was: Re: Smallest Transit MTU Mark Andrews (Jan 09)
- Re: Broken PMTUD for . + TLD servers, was: Re: Smallest Transit MTU Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jan 09)
- Re: Broken PMTUD for . + TLD servers, was: Re: Smallest Transit MTU Alexei Roudnev (Jan 10)
- Re: Broken PMTUD for . + TLD servers, was: Re: Smallest Transit MTU Mark Andrews (Jan 10)
- Re: Broken PMTUD for . + TLD servers, was: Re: Smallest Transit MTU Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 10)
- Re: Broken PMTUD for . + TLD servers, was: Re: Smallest Transit MTU Mark Andrews (Jan 10)
- Re: Broken PMTUD for . + TLD servers, was: Re: Smallest Transit MTU Alexei Roudnev (Jan 10)
- Re: Broken PMTUD for . + TLD servers, was: Re: Smallest Transit MTU Mark Andrews (Jan 09)
- Broken PMTUD for . + TLD servers, was: Re: Smallest Transit MTU Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jan 09)