Pretty much a "horses for courses" scenario
Can be helpful for LDNS cache if data sanctity is maintained in the extra
answers.
The important question for what should be the relation between actual answer
and extra answer
Also, just a fleeting thought, considering the limitations of mobile net
I just noticed that when configuring firewall rules for an AWS instance,
if "DNS" is chosen then the (only) protocol automagically filled in is
UDP.
To get TCP, you have to create a custom TCP rule.
When you save, the UDP one gets saved as "DNS", the TCP one stays "custom
TCP rule".
--
Fred Mor
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Fred Morris wrote:
> I just noticed that when configuring firewall rules for an AWS instance,
> if "DNS" is chosen then the (only) protocol automagically filled in is
> UDP.
>
> To get TCP, you have to create a custom TCP rule.
>
> When you save, the UDP one gets s
In message , Fred Morris
writes:
> I just noticed that when configuring firewall rules for an AWS instance,
> if "DNS" is chosen then the (only) protocol automagically filled in is
> UDP.
>
> To get TCP, you have to create a custom TCP rule.
>
> When you save, the UDP one gets saved as "DNS", t
Are there any Route 53 people on this list? If so, this should be fixed ASAP.
--Paul Hoffman
> On Jan 28, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Fred Morris wrote:
>
> I just noticed that when configuring firewall rules for an AWS instance,
> if "DNS" is chosen then the (only) protocol automagically filled in is
>
Sadly, there are devices such as the most recent Netgear routers and firmware
that block TCP queries as well in the most horrific way, e.g.:
https://www.cloudshark.org/captures/273da18d3057
- Jared
> On Jan 28, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Fred
I entirely agree. This is a point-specific issue.
There are lots of 53 stupidities, but this is one which has a single locus
of control which can be viewed as 'tractable'
On 29 January 2015 at 10:09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Are there any Route 53 people on this list? If so, this should be fixed
>
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Are there any Route 53 people on this list? If so, this should be fixed ASAP.
I'm not sure that this is a Route 53 issue, I was trying to run my own DNS
(for "other" purposes). I would characterize it as a tragically uninspired
UX.
--
Fred Morris
__
I use AWS to run instances of our DNS Engines so I have to configure both DNS
(UDP 53) and tcp port 53 to allow inbound access to the engine instances but
it's only because I'm running DNS servers in AWS. For anything use, DNS flows
properly as the traffic is outbound in those instances.
I supp
