Downsides to this proposed change.
1) Old versions of Windows might break.
2) Newer versions of windows might break - we've not done testing on
which do and don't.
3) Other platforms which have made the same mistake might break.
4) Dnsmasq installations which unkowningly rely on this behaviour
I think that this is legitimate behaviour. RFC 2181 para 9 says
Where TC is set, the partial RRSet that would not completely fit may
be left in the response. When a DNS client receives a reply with TC
set, it should ignore that response, and query again, using a
mechanism, such as a
Sorry for the noise, but it should have been:
Based on the analysis below, IMO it's not worth it.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 04:13 Wink Saville wrote:
> Based on the analysis below it's not
> IMO it's not worth it.
>
> Also, the KB has been deleted by
> Microsoft. Here[1] is a link to an archived
>
Based on the analysis below it's not
IMO it's not worth it.
Also, the KB has been deleted by
Microsoft. Here[1] is a link to an archived
version of that article.
[1]:https://mskb.pkisolutions.com/kb/281579
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 02:31 Simon Kelley wrote:
> Downsides to this proposed change.
>
On 25/09/2024 11:06, Simon Kelley wrote:
> Downsides to this proposed change.
>
> 1) Old versions of Windows might break.
> 2) Newer versions of windows might break - we've not done testing on
> which do and don't.
> 3) Other platforms which have made the same mistake might break.
> 4) Dnsmasq inst
