Interesting News!
There must be a hidden trick to introduce DNS Jumbograms we just
forgot to mention
In a press article [1] entitled
Root zone changes may shake up Net in Africa,
Computerworld wrote:
| From January 2010, ICANN will implement DNSSEC -- using a technique
| also known as
Question: Have people been able to estimate how large the signed root
zone response will be?
I'm assuming its below the magic 1500B level for standard queries. Is
this correct?
Oh, and one thing to watch out for: Some IP stacks I've noticed will
set DF on UDP datagrams, if the
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:09:53AM -0800, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
Question: Have people been able to estimate how large the signed root
zone response will be?
I'm assuming its below the magic 1500B level for standard queries. Is
this correct?
Oh, and one thing to watch out for: Some
[namedroppers dropped as this felt more operational to me]
On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
Question: Have people been able to estimate how large the signed root zone
response will be?
Response to what? Using the current IANA 'normal root servers' testbed:
% dig
On Nov 4, 2009, at 3:02 PM, David Conrad wrote:
[namedroppers dropped as this felt more operational to me]
On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
Question: Have people been able to estimate how large the signed
root zone response will be?
Response to what? Using the current
* David Blacka:
I actually researched this, and need to spend some time cleaning up
the report before posting it to this list. But the bottom line is
that yes, all responses save a few at the apex of root are below 1500b
(actually, below 1100b). The responses that are larger are . rrsig
On Nov 4, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* David Blacka:
I actually researched this, and need to spend some time cleaning up
the report before posting it to this list. But the bottom line is
that yes, all responses save a few at the apex of root are below
1500b
(actually, below
