Stéphane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Does minimal-responses make sense for an authoritative name server?
(Note there was no glue involved.)
On Mar 11, 2019, at 7:12 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
I think it helps reduce fragmentation if the max-udp-size is larger than
the MSS, but apart from that it probably
On Mar 11, 2019, at 7:12 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Stéphane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>
>> Does minimal-responses make sense for an authoritative name server?
>> (Note there was no glue involved.)
>
> I think it helps reduce fragmentation if the max-udp-size is larger than
> the MSS, but apart from
I actually HATE this behaviour by TLDs. There is no need to restrict the EDNS
UDP size at the authoritative server to prevent fragmentation. If the path
block fragments the client will adjust their EDNS UDP size to match. If the
path supports fragmentation (which is the actual RFC requirement)
Stéphane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> Does minimal-responses make sense for an authoritative name server?
> (Note there was no glue involved.)
I think it helps reduce fragmentation if the max-udp-size is larger than
the MSS, but apart from that it probably doesn't make much difference.
As far as I can
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 09:39:58PM +1100,
Mark Andrews wrote
a message of 119 lines which said:
> You are using the wrong control.
> Max-udp-size is what you want.
Thanks it works as expected now.
% dig +ignore @194.0.9.1 DNSKEY ma
; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Debian <<>> +ignore @194.0.9.1
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:57:02PM +,
Tony Finch wrote
a message of 40 lines which said:
> > ; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Debian <<>> @194.0.9.1 DNSKEY ma
>
> To properly diagnose UDP message size issues you need +ignore +notcp on
> the command line. (You actually need both options to stop dig
Stéphane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> ; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Debian <<>> @194.0.9.1 DNSKEY ma
To properly diagnose UDP message size issues you need +ignore +notcp on
the command line. (You actually need both options to stop dig using TCP in
all situations.) The response you pasted looked to me like what I
You are using the wrong control.
Max-udp-size is what you want.
--
Mark Andrews
> On 11 Mar 2019, at 20:14, Stéphane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> This machine has 'edns-udp-size: 1432' and, indeed, in the reply, it
> displays this buffer size. But it does not respect that limit. Here,
> with a big
This machine has 'edns-udp-size: 1432' and, indeed, in the reply, it
displays this buffer size. But it does not respect that limit. Here,
with a big DNSKEY RRset, BIND should have truncated the answer and set
the TC bit but it didn't:
% dig @194.0.9.1 DNSKEY ma
; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Debian <<>>
9 matches
Mail list logo
