Re: Something better than DNS?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



John Levine wrote:

As someone noted a few days ago, ICANN and the current roots have yet
to address the issues related to IDNs.  There's only one significant
technical issue, mapping non-unique Unicode strings into unique DNS
names

There is an ancillary issues that have not, to my knowledge, been adequately researched, and that is the expansion in the size of the response packets.

IDN's will tend to be longer than ASCII names. This will by itself make response packets larger. And, to the degree that root and secondary servers are named by IDNS, the various NS records will tend to grow as well. And most users are probably not aware of DNS name compression or try to accommodate it in the way that is done with the ?.root-servers.net convention, so we may get larger packets because name compression doesn't give us the same boost it used to.

Brew in longer addresses from IPv6 and we end up with longer response packets.

How much longer probably isn't a big issue unless they are big enough to trigger a fallback onto TCP rather than UDP or if we get UDP packets that exceed path MTU and have to be fragmented. (By-the-way, why is EDNS/RFC 2671 not advancing on the standards track?)

		--karl--

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]