Question about the ADDITIONAL SECTION
Barry Margolin
barmar at alum.mit.edu
Fri Jun 22 02:16:30 UTC 2007
In article <f5cusf$b9c$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at isc.org> wrote:
> The key word above was "referral". They are not returning
> referrals so there is no RFC requirement to return anything
> in the additional section.
I think the OP is claiming that including the additional section is a
best practice, not necessarily a requirement. Is there a good excuse
why someone might disable this, as they apparently do?
$ dig zoneedit.com ns @ns8.zoneedit.com +norec
; <<>> DiG 9.3.4 <<>> zoneedit.com ns @ns8.zoneedit.com +norec
; (1 server found)
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 34311
;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;zoneedit.com. IN NS
;; ANSWER SECTION:
zoneedit.com. 1200 IN NS ns4.zoneedit.com.
zoneedit.com. 1200 IN NS ns8.zoneedit.com.
zoneedit.com. 1200 IN NS ns2.zoneedit.com.
zoneedit.com. 1200 IN NS t2.zoneedit.com.
zoneedit.com. 1200 IN NS ns3.zoneedit.com.
;; Query time: 100 msec
;; SERVER: 206.55.124.4#53(206.55.124.4)
;; WHEN: Thu Jun 21 22:16:00 2007
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 119
--
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
More information about the bind-users
mailing list