On 6/6/2012 12:48 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> ...
>
> A properly functioning resolver will request the missing glue from
> the root servers and named at least will return it in the additional
> section or set TC=1. Glue isn't supposed to be truncated according
> to RFC 103[45] as it is not additiona
In message <4fcf293a.7070...@restena.lu>, Gilles Massen writes:
> Agreed, here are the queries:
>
> q=`jot -s . -b 123456789 25`.lu
> for n in $(jot -c 13 a); do dig @${n}.root-servers.net $q +norec
> +noquestion +noanswer +noauth +nocomment +nostat; done
>
> There are 2 groups of additional sec
records.
Please add "+bufsize=1280" to your dig commend to get a different result.
-- Akira Kato
From: Gilles Massen
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-14.txt
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:56:10 +0200
> Agreed, here are the queries:
>
> q=`jot -s . -b 12345678
On 06/06/2012 11:56, Gilles Massen wrote:
> There are 2 groups of additional sections:
> A, C, E, I, J: 2 names, with their v4+v6 addresses
> B, D, E, G, H, K, L, M: 4 names, only v4 addresses
>
> Now I don't want to pick on any implementation, rather get an idea of
> the reasoning behind the beh
Agreed, here are the queries:
q=`jot -s . -b 123456789 25`.lu
for n in $(jot -c 13 a); do dig @${n}.root-servers.net $q +norec
+noquestion +noanswer +noauth +nocomment +nostat; done
There are 2 groups of additional sections:
A, C, E, I, J: 2 names, with their v4+v6 addresses
B, D, E, G, H, K, L,
On 2012-06-05, at 08:28, Gilles Massen wrote:
> One set of root servers fills the additional section with 2 names, and
> their v4 and v6 addresses. But it's always the same two servers,
> indepently of the server asked. The other set answers with a bit more
> servers, but only v4 adresses, and he
Coming back to this unanswered question: from my point of view the color
matching seems a bit harsh with regard to operational reality. I
certainly won't get any nightmares for non exhaustive additional
sections in response to extremely large queries.
This said, while looking at this I noticed som
I looked back at this and noticed I should have said "the right
matrix" is more important.
Still, I'm a little surprised there's been no response from a
comparison of a DNS Operations WG document to real-world measurements.
Are we okay with a document that issues criteria that only 70% of
TL
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-14.txt
For kicks I ran the included perl code against the 313 delegations
from the root zone (313 does not include "root" and does include the
11 test TLDs).
...I'll leave it to the draft to exp
