The point in my anecdote and the quote from the test was to say that
you do NOT need to set the value if you're getting something within 300
bytes of the advertised value. You are as I was so do not need to set
it.
It may be the person that suggested setting it was under the
misapprehension
the only working solution for me was to configure inside ns.cr.test.com
a slave zone
for domain test.com. I wanted to avoid this but it is the only working
solution
thanks
Barry Margolin wrote:
In article mailman.1343.1272903565.21153.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Gregory Hicks
2010/5/4 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
In message y2sf7e964441005031927m7774769ev280156817d8b4...@mail.gmail.com,
Je
ff Pang writes:
Does this mean our ISP's filrewall block EDNS query/response?
Thanks Mark.
Firstly I was very afraid DNSSEC deployment for root DNS will affect
our DNS
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:27:25AM -0400,
Linux Addict linuxaddi...@gmail.com wrote
a message of 89 lines which said:
lacks EDNS, defaults to 512
DNS reply size limit is at least 490
Tested at 2010-05-04 14:21:02 UTC
You edited the responses (which includes an IP address). Is it the IP
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.frwrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:27:25AM -0400,
Linux Addict linuxaddi...@gmail.com wrote
a message of 89 lines which said:
lacks EDNS, defaults to 512
DNS reply size limit is at least 490
Tested at 2010-05-04
Has anybody else seen this before?
I operate a large distributed farm of DNS caching resolvers
for my customers, with many public addresses and behind SLB.
Recently I began seeing a large number of malformed queries
coming from a handful of machines in Europe, targeting
one particular public
It may be the person that suggested setting it was under the
misapprehension that the two values would be the same but the quote from
the Java testing tool made it clear that is NOT the case.
I think this is it exactly. But someone in the thread seemed pretty certain
that we needed to set
7 matches
Mail list logo
