> Joe Abley wrote:
> >=20
> >=20
> > I think what is interesting to me is to examine EDNS0 availability
> > amongst the class of queries that can reasonably be answered. I don't
> > much care whether queries that can't be answered support EDNS0.
> >=20
> > But others may be interested in different things :-)
> >=20
>
> How important is the actual size advertised in the EDNS0 field?
>
> I remember a small but noticeable number of hosts having EDNS0 enabled
> but set to 512 octets, when i did some stats research a while ago (data
> has probably aged too much to say anything about it now, just thought
> i'd mention it).
>
> It's still better than no edns0 because it means the code is there and
> it's probably a configuration thing, but still.
>
> Jelte
It's actually BIND 9 falling back to 512 bytes because the
default EDNS query failed to get a response.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] firewalls.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
