Question about the ADDITIONAL SECTION
Mark Andrews
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Fri Jun 22 03:15:23 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?
It consumes bandwidth. In many cases it is ignored/rejected
by the client who just re-queries for it. It does break
stub zones but they are not part of the protocol anyway.
> $ 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 ***
>
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org
More information about the bind-users
mailing list