On 07/08/2012 13:40, Faasen, Craig wrote: > > > Out of curiosity, any idea why a name server would want to change > > > the RD bit ? (except to break an unsuspecting script ;)
both RA and RD are uni-directional (and over in the IETF we'll find someone who remembers why it was desigend this way instead of saving the bit). > Anand Buddhdev wrote: > > 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. The "client" well indeed be somebody withj a dig/drill/host in their hands, and in tose cases, keeping the RD at least informs the debugging individual how the query was received. On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 01:39:32PM -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote: > 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. Well, at least my version of "dig" breaks insofar as it emits a warning that is only based on the response: ";; WARNING: recursion requested but not available", even with "+norec". -Peter _______________________________________________ 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
