Dnsmasq returns an empty answer, which may not be correct, but is at
least an answer, so I'm not sure where the timeout is coming from.

>From RFC 1995

  If incremental zone transfer is not available, the entire zone is
   returned.  The first and the last RR of the response is the SOA
   record of the zone.  I.e. the behavior is the same as an AXFR
   response except the query type is IXFR.


So a simple answer would be to treat IXFR exactly the same as AXFR,
which should be trivial.


Cheers,

Simon.

On 15/01/2019 17:07, Wojtek Swiatek wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I was trying to use dnsmasq as a master with unbound as secondaries.
> After some debugging
> (https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/bugs-script/show_bug.cgi?id=4219), I realized
> that IXFR is not handled by dnsmasq (AXFR is - and works fine).
> It seems that the request just hangs and timeouts.
> 
> Would it be possible to appropriately respond to IXFR queries so that
> the requesting server knows to fallback to AXFR?
> I am trying at the same time to see whether the "timeout" case could not
> be gracefully handled as well on unbound side (they only handle rejection)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
> 

_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

Reply via email to