-----Original Message----- From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:28 PM To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org" <bind-users@lists.isc.org> Subject: truncated responses vs. minimal-responses?
>Hello, > >last few weeks I have seen many discussions over UDP truncating and using >"minimal-responses yes;" to prevent BIDN from doing that. > >I've read article stating that nameserver should avoid truncating packets >even by skipping additional and authority sections in its responses, which >should mean that using minimal-responses would not help. > >However, I've seen a few mails mentioning that a query can get truncated >when the authority section is too big and advices to turn >minimal-responses >on. > >Reading the 9.9.2 docs and even looking at the sources (I am not a C >coder) >did not help me with this. It seems it should help... less bits in the packet relating to additional and authority should leave room for other data. That said, I think the better way (when possible) is to adjust RRs not to return "too much data" (e.g. NS, A, etc. not returning more than ~8 hosts -- which in turn could be multicast, load balanced, etc to get the desired scale). Akamai, for example, defaults to limiting up to 8 "RDATAs" per RR (or however you'd describe that). If you add 20 As for a name you'll rotate through 8 at a time. You can request more at your own risk...they assume you'll ensure the larger answer will fit in a UDP packet and not cause TCP responses which cripple performance. _______________________________________________ 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
