Anand Buddhdev wrote: > On 07/08/2012 13:40, Faasen, Craig wrote: > > > RD is set to 1 in the query, but is 0 in the response. > > Which is not compliant with RFC 1035: "RD Recursion Desired - this > > bit may be set in a query and is copied into the response." > > > > Out of curiosity, any idea why a name server would want to change > > the RD bit ? (except to break an unsuspecting script ;) > > Hi Craig, > > In my opinion, the RD flag has no value in a response really. It's just > a way for a client to signal to a server that it wants the server to > perform recursive queries. While RFC 1035 requires the server to copy > the value of RD from the query into the response, a client shouldn't > even be bothering to look at RD in a response, and certainly should not > break if its value in the response doesn't match the query.
indeed, and for an example of the opposite behavior, see ns[1-4].google.com, which set the RD bit in responses regardless of the RD bit in the query. -- Robert Edmonds [email protected] _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
