On 10 Aug 2008, at 11:56, Paul Vixie wrote:
(here we are discussing dns protocol details on nanog@ again. must
be sunday.)
(Or alternatively we could just be discussing DNS operations,
something that is entirely on-topic for this list, and conceivably of
interest to the many hundreds of people who are subscribed here but
not to other dns-specific lists. That was certainly my intent, even if
it wasn't yours.)
From: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It may be worth clarifying that "not considering TCP mandatory"
above is
an implementation/operational choice, and not something that seems
to be
clearly endorsed by RFC 1035, such as it is.
There are a lot of people who insist that TCP transport is used for
nothing other than zone transfers in the DNS, and they do so not
out of
concern over potential TCP state explosion on their servers but
instead
because "that's what the last guy told me". That kind of reasoning
doesn't need a bigger posse.
Joe
4.2. Transport
...
actually, it does (need a bigger posse).
Rhetoric aside, no it doesn't.
Choosing not to implement (or permit, as an operational decision) TCP
because of concerns about state is what you go on to talk about; what
you were actually replying to was the wholesale denial of 53/tcp out
of simple ignorance, which I would be surprised to hear you endorse,
even if it happens to coincide on this instance with the results of
your analysis.
Joe
