> Mark> Send it a non-recursive query. A nameserver should > Mark> always answer even if it is just a header containing > Mark> refused, servfail or notimp. > > Yes, but there is one notorious DNS implementation that doesn't do > that. It fails to return any answer -- not even a referral for . -- if > it's asked for a name that it isn't authoritative for. Fortunatly, his other suggestion about sending a status opcode will get a "not implemented" response from the "nortorious implementation" in question. The only DNS server I know about that has version out there that don't correctly handle the "status" opcode is my own implentation of a DNS server. It used to handle a status query like a normal query. In fact, Mark's posting made me realize that my implementation had this problem. In light of his posting, I just released a new bugfix release because of this issue. - Sam
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Nathan Jones
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Mark . Andrews
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Robert Elz
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Mans Nilsson
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? James Raftery
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Bruce Campbell
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Mark . Andrews
- Re: Should a nameserver know about it... Jim Reid
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Mats Dufberg
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Peter Koch
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Sam Trenholme
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? bert hubert
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Robert Elz
- Re: Should a nameserver know about it... Bruce Campbell
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Sam Trenholme
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Mans Nilsson
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Jim Reid
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Mats Dufberg
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Kenneth Porter
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Mats Dufberg
- Checks performed during delegatio... Bruce Campbell
