Re: .

Posté par baud123 (Jabber id, page perso, ) le 04/01/2008 à 22:07. (lien). Évalué à 3.

bin je cite l'article de arstechnica

The trouble is that the original Domain Name System specification only allows for 512-byte packets in the DNS protocol. With 13 root servers, we're already well over 400 bytes. Any useful number of IPv6 addresses for root servers would push this beyond the 512-byte limit. So for a long time, the parties involved have considered the possibilities of ill effects when IPv6 addresses for the root DNS servers are added to "the dot." (A dot signifies the end of a DNS name. A dot without a name is therefore the root of the DNS hierarchy.)

The message from IANA links to a lengthy report, written by ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory and Root Server System Advisory Committees, detailing all the possible issues that could come up. The majority of modern DNS software is capable of sending and receiving packets larger than 512 bytes, so anyone running these should be fine. If a DNS server doesn't indicate this capability in its request, the root server will fit as much as it can within a 512-byte packet and mark the answer as "truncated," which is the requester's cue to retry the request over TCP rather than the usual UDP. So older DNS software shouldn't have any problems, either, so long as firewalls don't block DNS packets larger than 512 bytes or DNS requests over TCP.

z'ont implémenté des logiciels nouveaux gérant au-delà de la spécification d'origine du protocole, seuls de vieux DNS avec de vieux logiciels risquent de ne pas passer à IPv6 (une bonne manière de les réformer lors de la migration), ils seront identifiés dans cette phase préliminaire, même si une alternative a été proposée pour que ça marchotte quand même.

[ Répondre ]