In message <87639qrq25....@mid.deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer writes: > * Alfred H=F6nes: > > > There must be a hidden trick to introduce DNS Jumbograms we just > > forgot to mention .... > > The claims about firewall issues seems dubious to me. It's certainly > not the 512 byte limit which is a problem here---I think we've got > pretty good empiric evidence that it's not a problem anymore. Several > root responses are already larger than 512 bytes, and you can't send > mail to AOL or Yahoo if you're behind a firewall that swallows > responses larger than 512 bytes. People tend to fix such things, > especially if the Internet is a new thing to them and they want to > communicate with each other, instead of merely being right and > protocol compliant.
And the protocol says that answers bigger than 512 bytes are legal if EDNS is in use. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
