On 01/06/2021 16:01, Karl Pielorz wrote:
Hi Karl,
> Thanks for the pointer - ok, yes I can see it's probably EDNS / Flag day
> related etc. I missed that - probably as it's never caused us an issue.
> Annoyingly a value of 1232 causes a TCP fallback to a server out of our
> control that doesn't d
--On 1 June 2021 at 13:03:12 +0200 Anand Buddhdev wrote:
On 01/06/2021 12:55, Karl Pielorz wrote:
Hi Karl,
Anyone know why the Bind query appears to set such a low UDPsize? -
We've nothing in our config setting sizes, or maximums.
Here's an answer:
https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_16
On 01/06/2021 12:55, Karl Pielorz wrote:
Hi Karl,
> Anyone know why the Bind query appears to set such a low UDPsize? -
> We've nothing in our config setting sizes, or maximums.
Here's an answer:
https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_16_16/notes.html#notes-for-bind-9-16-16
Regards,
Anand
Hi,
If I switch between having Bind go lookup a name, and dig - I can see a
difference in tcpdump, i.e.
Bind 9.16.16:
11:44:19.041785 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 3613, offset 0, flags [none], proto
UDP (17), length 66)
Us.54445 > Them.53: 3636 [1au] MX? somedomain.org. ar: . OPT
UDPsize=12
4 matches
Mail list logo