-----Original Message----- From: Ted Mittelstaedt <t...@ipinc.net> Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:26 AM To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org" <bind-users@lists.isc.org> Subject: Survey - how many people running ISP nameservers define "minimal-responses" - was Re: What is the deal on missing "Authority Section" and "additional section" from google's DNS servers?
>Great answers to my question, thanks! > >So now, what do you guys all run? > >I have always followed the principle of "provide the most information >possible and let the users decide what to ignore" which is why I never >gave a second thought to providing additional data. i run minimal-responses externally, and provide full data internally where bandwidth is cheap and i'm less concerned over use cases. >But if as Warren said: > >"...Many things (correctly (IMO)) ignore the info in additional section >due to past entertainment with cache poising, etc...." > >then what would be best practices for an ISP? while it's largely personal preference -- i generally like to "be conservative in what i send, and liberal in what i accept": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle it's not violating RFCs to send the full data so it's not technically "wrong". however, if sending back too much data is known to cause problems in some cases and can potentially be used against you...then it seems wise to take the minimal path. _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
