Re: Bind response to query's very small edns udp payload size

2016-04-15 Thread Barry Margolin
In article , John Wobus wrote: > >> What does bind try to do if the client specifies a udp size of less than > >> 512? > > > > From RFC 6891: > > > > Values lower than 512 MUST be treated as equal to 512. > > Doh. > > The behavior I saw was a shorter authority section and no additional sect

Re: Bind response to query's very small edns udp payload size

2016-04-15 Thread John Wobus
>> What does bind try to do if the client specifies a udp size of less than 512? > > From RFC 6891: > > Values lower than 512 MUST be treated as equal to 512. Doh. The behavior I saw was a shorter authority section and no additional section (or TO) when I specified a UDP buffer of 200 as oppo

Re: Bind response to query's very small edns udp payload size

2016-04-12 Thread Barry Margolin
In article , John Wobus wrote: > What does bind try to do if the client specifies a udp size of less than 512? > I’ve been trying queries and here is what I’ve seen: >From RFC 6891: Values lower than 512 MUST be treated as equal to 512. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6891#section-6.2.3 S

Re: BIND response time is relatively high

2015-01-26 Thread Niall O'Reilly
At Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:50:37 +, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: > > > The parameter that is glaringly missing from your list is > “recursive-clients”. Do you have that set at default value (1000) or > have you bumped it up higher? Since you say that this happens at “peak > hours”, recursive-clients

RE: BIND response time is relatively high

2015-01-26 Thread Darcy Kevin (FCA)
The parameter that is glaringly missing from your list is “recursive-clients”. Do you have that set at default value (1000) or have you bumped it up higher? Since you say that this happens at “peak hours”, recursive-clients is the prime suspect, since it governs how many *simultaneous* recursive

Re: Bind response

2010-06-01 Thread David Forrest
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 01.06.10 14:16, rams wrote: I queried for cname domain against bind 9.6.X and got the following response C:\Documents and Settings\rameshb>dig @localhost cname.td3497.com mx ; <<>> DiG 9.6.1-P1 <<>> @localhost cname.td3497.com mx ; (1 server

Re: Bind response

2010-06-01 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 01.06.10 14:16, rams wrote: > I queried for cname domain against bind 9.6.X and got the following response > C:\Documents and Settings\rameshb>dig @localhost cname.td3497.com mx > ; <<>> DiG 9.6.1-P1 <<>> @localhost cname.td3497.com mx > ; (1 server found) > ;; global options: +cmd > ;; Got answ