> From: Vladimír Čunát
>> Use 'minimal-responses' configuration:
> Nit: this formulation makes me wonder what this recommends for SVCB-like
> records. Strictly taken I'd say it clashes with some SHOULDs from the
> soon-to-be RFC. Either way, SVCB-like queries could be prone to generating
>
thanks for this. can you propose new text? educating the authors to the
point where they can speak for your experience may be error prone.
re:
Vladimír Čunát wrote on 2023-01-28 09:42:
With Knot Resolver + Knot DNS the fragmentation issues are currently
being addressed quite simply:
*
With Knot Resolver + Knot DNS the fragmentation issues are currently
being addressed quite simply:
* IP_PMTUDISC_OMIT to avoid spoofed MTU
* UDP size limit, 1232 by default (and of course honoring if the other
side wants lower, etc.)
Other points from the draft, perhaps less important:
