ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote: > >> The text in RFC 2671, presented as a hint, could deal to similar issues >> with the TCP transport for DNS (working to change SHOULD for MUST). > > Can you elaborate on what you mean? > > I presume you're aware of my draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements ?
Yes, I'm aware of your draft and I meant to support Patrik Falstrom comment: we have to be very careful with the wording if we don't want to be working in future years to update/correct the limit for UDP buffer size in EDNS. > >> From BIND ARM 9.7.0 >> >> ---------------------- >> edns-udp-size >> Sets the advertised EDNS UDP buffer size in bytes to control the size >> of packets received. >> Valid values are 1024 to 4096 (values outside this range will be >> silently adjusted) >> ---------------------- > > Yes, that's the one. I was sat on a train with a flakey 3G connection > when I sent the last message so couldn't check it, but that confirms my > recollection. > > I've already submitted to ISC that the choice of value should be left > entirely to the sysadmin, and not restricted to an arbitrary lower value > by their software. > > kind regards, > > Ray > > -- > Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET > Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet > e: r...@nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211 > Cheers Sebastian Castro NZRS > > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
