* Craig Faasen:
> I noticed that the "rd" flag was missing from the output of a
> standard (recursive) dig against some (*) of the name-services.com
> name servers:
By the way, you should clear the RD bit when querying authoritative
servers. Setting the RD bit increases the rate of SERVFAIL answ
There is a little bit more off:
1) All classes are converted to 'IN', try dig with CLASS12345 (or any class
other than 1) and you'll get
;; Question section mismatch: got name-services.com/A/IN
2) single label qnames often get expanded weirdly
dig @dns5.name-services.com com
; <<>> DiG <<>> @d
Peter Koch wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 01:39:32PM -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> > indeed, and for an example of the opposite behavior, see
> > ns[1-4].google.com, which set the RD bit in responses regardless of the
> > RD bit in the query.
>
> Well, at least my version of "dig" breaks insofa
On 07/08/2012 13:40, Faasen, Craig wrote:
> > > Out of curiosity, any idea why a name server would want to change
> > > the RD bit ? (except to break an unsuspecting script ;)
both RA and RD are uni-directional (and over in the IETF we'll find someone
who remembers why it was desigend this way in
At 13:40 +0200 8/7/12, Faasen, Craig wrote:
Which is not compliant with RFC 1035: "RD Recursion Desired - this bit may
be set in a query and is copied into the response."
While true, being a violation that is, I wouldn't worry about it.
I.e., make the script loose here. It's like doing 60 in
Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> On 07/08/2012 13:40, Faasen, Craig wrote:
>
> > RD is set to 1 in the query, but is 0 in the response.
> > Which is not compliant with RFC 1035: "RD Recursion Desired - this
> > bit may be set in a query and is copied into the response."
> >
> > Out of curiosity, any idea
On 07/08/2012 13:40, Faasen, Craig wrote:
> RD is set to 1 in the query, but is 0 in the response.
> Which is not compliant with RFC 1035: "RD Recursion Desired - this
> bit may be set in a query and is copied into the response."
>
> Out of curiosity, any idea why a name server would want to chan
Hello,
I noticed that the "rd" flag was missing from the output of a standard
(recursive) dig against some (*) of the name-services.com name servers:
$ dig @dns5.name-services.com. name-services.com. | grep flags
;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 5
(*) dns1 and dns5
