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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf