Re: 512 byte limit

2009-01-23 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:06:38AM +, Chris Thompson wrote a message of 28 lines which said: >> As mentioned by Anton Korotin, the root name servers send answers > 512. > > Well not unless the EDNS flag and buffer size are set in the query, of > course. Which BIND does by default. > a,

Re: 512 byte limit

2009-01-22 Thread Chris Thompson
On Jan 22 2009, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: [...] As mentioned by Anton Korotin, the root name servers send answers > 512. Well not unless the EDNS flag and buffer size are set in the query, of course. This prompted me to look at what data is omitted from the additional section of the respon

Re: 512 byte limit

2009-01-22 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:47:01AM -0500, Todd Snyder wrote a message of 38 lines which said: > I am sure there is much in the RTFM category, and I will continue to > RTFM, The FM here is RFC 2671, published nine years ago (a lot of time in Internet terms). > We are seeing some firewall mess

Re: 512 byte limit

2009-01-21 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <46e76f620901210952s3a357724w44e08804484fb...@mail.gmail.com>, Josh Kuo writes: > > 1) If a reply is over 512 bytes, which can't in theory be done via UDP, > > should the queried server reply telling my resolver to ask again using > > TCP? Assuming, as one normally should, that there

Re: 512 byte limit

2009-01-21 Thread Josh Kuo
> 1) If a reply is over 512 bytes, which can't in theory be done via UDP, > should the queried server reply telling my resolver to ask again using > TCP? Assuming, as one normally should, that there are firewalls, the > queried server can't simply reply TCP, as it would get blocked. I am not sure

Re: 512 byte limit

2009-01-21 Thread Anton Korotin
On 1/21/09, Todd Snyder wrote: > Good day, Hello, > > I am stuggling to get my head around the 512 byte limit with regards to > DNS queries/responses. I am sure there is much in the RTFM category, > and I will continue to RTFM, but I wanted to ask a couple of specific > questions. > > 1) I

Re: 512 byte limit

2009-01-21 Thread Niall O'Reilly
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 11:47 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote: > I was under the (likely mistaken) impression that over 512 wasn't > allowed, but there it is ... > > I could very well be completely messed up regarding the rules, so > please > forgive my ignorance. If you know my answer is in TFM, please b