[AusNOG] "stateless TCP" for DNS

[Dobbins, Roland]

On Nov 15, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Mattia Rossi wrote:

> We also point out that DNS response sizes can be increased to 4096 Bytes, but yes, we don't mention EDNS.

This is a *major* oversight which has a negative impact on the credibility of the paper; you should actually have quite a bit to say about EDNS0, including EDNS0-related breakage in middleboxes/middleblades.   It should be addressed in a revision, as you've some worthwhile questions to posit, but folks won't take you seriously if you leave such a huge conceptual and factual gap in your work.

;>

> Additionally, we are concerned about DNS responses making it back to the client through the network, which is not covered by any of these 
> studies: e.g. of the 70% queries seen/answered, how many responses make  it actually back to the client?


Which is what I was alluding to in terms of a reachability study, as you indicate later in your response.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

 	       Sell your computer and buy a guitar.