On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We know that EDNS0 works. Mark did a good description of the present
state. I see nothing to the contrary. It is A Good Thing to endorse
EDNS0 in a document like this, because it could speed up deployment.
I am not an expert with EDNS0, but
Peter Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But this reminds me; doesn't SCTP use the same port number space
as TCP?
Not anymore.
basically the same space, but they do have separate entries on
/etc/services and http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.
for instance, http is
Hello Thomas,
I'm just returning from vacation and catching up, but it seems
to me that the packet size issue could become important if we
expect that the DNS will return many , A, etc. records
for some FQDNs. Are there any limits on the number of RRs
per FQDN that may be stored in the DNS?
Thomas,
Seems to me, given the above wording, 2460 says Path MTU is a SHOULD,
not a MAY. Note that the MAY is about _not_ implementing it (in some
situations), not a MAY implement it in some subset of the comment
cases.
I.e, if node-requirements says MAY, I think that is a downgrade from
the
Hello Thomas,
I'm just returning from vacation and catching up, but it seems
to me that the packet size issue could become important if we
expect that the DNS will return many , A, etc. records
for some FQDNs. Are there any limits on the number of RRs
per FQDN that may be stored in
