On 06/08/2018 03:06 PM, Daniel Salzman wrote: > Hi Anand, > > I fully understand your argument, but this was our decision in the past. > Every outgoing DNS message from Knot is over TCP. We didn't want to wait
s/outgoing/knot-initiated > or deduce whether a slave got the message. > > Best, > Daniel > > On 06/08/2018 02:59 PM, Anand Buddhdev wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> I don't run Knot DNS as a master, so I don't see this issue. Even if I >> ran Knot DNS as a master, I'm not terribly bothered with NOTIFY over TCP. >> >> Having said that, I don't think it's very fair to say that UDP is >> unreliable, and there are various reasons for it: >> >> 1. NOTIFY is a hint, and if it gets lost, it's not the biggest disaster >> in the world. >> >> 2. NOTIFY is just like any other query, so Knot could send the NOTIFY >> over UDP and wait for the response. If the response doesn't arrive, it >> could retry the NOTIFY. At least BIND and NSD both do this. They allow >> for the fact that one NOTIFY might get lost sometimes. >> >> However, if you can't easily modify Knot to use UDP instead of TCP for >> NOTIFY, it doesn't bother me personally, because a NOTIFY receiver >> should also be able to accept TCP (TCP is required by DNS). But I can >> see Klaus's viewpoint. However, I'll leave him to tell us his opinion on >> this matter. >> >> Regards, >> Anand >> >> On 08/06/2018 14:11, Daniel Salzman wrote: >> >>> Hi Klaus, >>> >>> Knot DNS always sends NOTIFY over TCP. It's intentional, because UDP is >>> unreliable. >>> Unfortunately, it's not possible to easily switch to UDP :-/ -- https://lists.nic.cz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/knot-dns-users
