[dns-wg] Draft recommendation for limiting the EDNS0 response size on authoritative name servers

* Gijs van den Broek:

> Hi Florian,
>
>> What's your stance on atomic fragments for IPv6?
>
> We did not particularly consider atomic fragments. Could you be a
> bit more specific?

I think we've got a classical pick-any-two situation: interoperability
with existing clients, statelessness in the server, and compliance
with the existing specification:

You can send atomic fragments if you've recently received an ICMPv6
message requesting for a particular address.  This requires state in
the server.

You can unconditionally send atomic fragments.  This breaks
interoperability with existing clients.

You can never send atomic fragments.  This is not what the
specification requires.

This overlaps with concerns in your proposal because the size of the
Fragmentation header might have some impact on your size calculations.