I'm confused. DO bit implies EDNS0, and we think DO bit in the field is north of 75%.
What did I mis-understand? The APNIC 1x1 is a random sample over users, and it sees significantly more than 75% EDNS0. More like 93%. -George On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > > Mark Andrews wrote: >> >> In >> message<CAC=TB12xXJNbmexMA4w5oLU+xhQbh=tKH=d7ykblqeklvsj...@mail.gmail.com>, >> =?UTF-8?Q?Marek_Vavru=C5=A1a?= writes: >>> >>> I see the point but I don't really want to go down the EDNS route. >> >> >> Why not? It is cleaner as it deals with A-only, A and AAAA, and >> AAAA-only sites without a second lookup once support is deployed. >> It is supportable on a hop by hop basis. > > > i think we have to start planning for a world in which EDNS0 never reaches > 75% penetration due to middleboxes having the high ground. > > i think putting aaaa in the additional section and specifying that the AA > bit covers all rr's matching qname or effective-qname, is likely to > penetrate better than rrtype!=qtype in the answer section, though. > > -- > P Vixie > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
