On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
Have you installed any trust anchors in the resolver? (I don't think
so, the packet numbers are a bit on the lower side for that.)
I didn't. I was mostly interested in the "DURZ" case where the root
zone becomes signed but people aren't configurin
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
Also, has someone done a study what the major recursive resolvers do on
response failures from a root? Do they go to another first or do they try a
smaller EDNS MTU?
I gave a presentation on this at the DNS-OARC meeting last week:
https://www.dns
On 11/11/2009, at 3:29 PM, Duane Wessels wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
>
>> Also, has someone done a study what the major recursive resolvers do on
>> response failures from a root? Do they go to another first or do they try a
>> smaller EDNS MTU?
>
> I gave a pre
On Nov 10, 2009, at 10:42 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> On 11/11/2009, at 3:29 PM, Duane Wessels wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
>>
>>> Also, has someone done a study what the major recursive resolvers do on
>>> response failures from a root? Do they go to another first or
* Duane Wessels:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
>
>> Also, has someone done a study what the major recursive resolvers do
>> on response failures from a root? Do they go to another first or do
>> they try a smaller EDNS MTU?
>
> I gave a presentation on this at the DNS-OARC meeting
On 11/11/2009, at 3:29 PM, Duane Wessels wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
>
>> Also, has someone done a study what the major recursive resolvers do on
>> response failures from a root? Do they go to another first or do they try a
>> smaller EDNS MTU?
>
> I gave a pre
Matthew,
On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:04 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
The current deployment plan is to stage things to push out large
On 5/11/2009, at 10:45 AM, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
I'd appreciate if someone could clarify what the "large responses"
that will preexist "actual DNSSEC usable data" that Bill Manning is
referring to are. It's unclear to me whether it's still technically
DNSSEC data and hence would require a cli
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:04 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
>>> The current deployment plan is to stage things to push out large
>>> responses
>>> early - prior to having any actual DNSSEC us
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
> The current deployment plan is to stage things to push out large
> responses
> early - prior to having any actual DNSSEC usable data ... ostensibly to
> flush out DNSmtu problems.
Is this plan to push out large responses indiscrimin
In message , Nicholas W
eaver writes:
>
> On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM,
> > wrote:
> >>The current deployment plan is to stage things to push out
> >> large responses
> >>early - prior to having any actual DNSSEC
* Nicholas Weaver:
> Also, has someone done a study what the major recursive resolvers do
> on response failures from a root? Do they go to another first or do
> they try a smaller EDNS MTU?
Note that switching seems beneficial because six roots MTUs clearly
support MTUs less than 1500, and seve
* Matthew Dempsky:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
>> The current deployment plan is to stage things to push out large
>> responses
>> early - prior to having any actual DNSSEC usable data ... ostensibly
>> to
>> flush out DNSmtu problems.
>
> Is this plan to pus
On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
>>The current deployment plan is to stage things to push out large
>> responses
>>early - prior to having any actual DNSSEC usable data ... ostensibly
>> to
>>flush out DNSmtu p
On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM,
wrote:
The current deployment plan is to stage things to push out
large responses
early - prior to having any actual DNSSEC usable data ...
ostensibly to
flush out DNSmtu problems.
15 matches
Mail list logo
