At IETF this week it was decided to refocus the effort on the
edns-client-subnet draft on only documenting the existing behaviour of
deployed implementations.
To clarify some areas that were un/under-specified I am looking for
implementers of both recursive and authoritative servers at the
followi
RFC 1035 explicitly allows for a server to indicate that a kind of
query is not implemented.
Whether it is a good idea to respond to ANY this way is a separate
argument that is worth having. You just won't win on the foundation
that it is a violation of the standard.
Warren Kumari:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer :
>> Warren Kumari wrote
>>> wkumari@vimes:~$ dig ns +noall +comments com.akadns.net
>>>
>> [Example of a nameservcer replying NXDOMAIN for an ENT.]
>
> Yes, I'm just surprised that Akamai suffers from it.
It is definitely considered a bug and has had a CR ope
Warren Kumari:
> We actually have some updates that unfortunately didn't *quite* make
> it in before the cutoff[0].
>
> [0]: Yes, making it in before the cut-off or not making it in before
> the cut-off is a binary, but, well
Please feel free to hurl suitably non-lethal objects at me. It was
Ray Bellis :
> It appears to be a solution for a problem that does not exist, based on a
> misunderstanding of how TCP clients and servers are already supposed to
> interact and a misrepresentation of the recommended shortening of the
> standard timeout for TCP sessions that happened in RFC 5966.
Ted Lemon wrote:
> It might be worth actively pushing the CDN folks to go the SRV direction.
Not so much pushing required, at least of Akamai. You have a
ready-made ally in me, if only clients actually made good use of it.
The clients are the real obstacle.
Looking at a random high-traffic DNS
