>From the bugzilla: > This is tough situation
Well I'm not understanding what's tough. You have the ip:port as well. Client txn ID should be random so within a small timeout this should be easily and reliably matched? I'm just a user not an unbound dev but IMO I wish the RFC (and its updates) were more clear on this. The only important aspect on response size (wrt best practice) is that the response payload fits within a single UDP datagram. Since the question is guaranteed to fit in 512 bytes, unbound is wrong here. As a reference point, Windows Server stub resolver does the same thing -- ignores header-only responses. Windows Desktop however will match. On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 6:52 AM Florian Weimer via Unbound-users < unbound-users@lists.nlnetlabs.nl> wrote: > It's been reported that glibc does not recognize REFUSED responses > generated by Unbound with this configuration: > > server: > interface: 0.0.0.0 > access-control: 0.0.0.0/0 refuse > > Our bug report is here: > > DNS stub resolver ignores header-only error responses > <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31890> > > I've got a fix, but it goes somewhat against what I think are current > stub resolver practices: do not ignore the question section for response > matching. Are my expectations just wrong? Is it more important for > servers to produce smaller responses? > > Thanks, > Florian > >
