> The text in RFC 2671, presented as a hint, could deal to similar issues > with the TCP transport for DNS (working to change SHOULD for MUST).
Can you elaborate on what you mean? I presume you're aware of my draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements ? > From BIND ARM 9.7.0 > > ---------------------- > edns-udp-size > Sets the advertised EDNS UDP buffer size in bytes to control the size > of packets received. > Valid values are 1024 to 4096 (values outside this range will be > silently adjusted) > ---------------------- Yes, that's the one. I was sat on a train with a flakey 3G connection when I sent the last message so couldn't check it, but that confirms my recollection. I've already submitted to ISC that the choice of value should be left entirely to the sysadmin, and not restricted to an arbitrary lower value by their software. kind regards, Ray -- Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet e: r...@nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
