Stéphane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> 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 <d...@dotat.at> wrote:
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 tell, clients and resolvers generally re-query for
additional records when they are needed, and they already have the
delegation records which should be the same as the authority records, so
it seems pointless to me to add records to authoritative responses when
they aren't used.
On 12.03.19 08:18, Chris Buxton wrote:
Enabling minimal-responses on an authoritative server will break any other
server with a stub zone declaration with this authoritative server listed
as master. The implementation of stub zones assumes that an SOA query
will retrieve all of the required information (SOA, NS, and supporting
A/AAAA records) to successfully insert the zone apex into the cache.
isn't SOA response limited in an ongoing RFC draft?
that would bereak stub zones too...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
- Have you got anything without Spam in it?
- Well, there's Spam egg sausage and Spam, that's not got much Spam in it.
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
