Question about the ADDITIONAL SECTION
Dan Murphy
dmurphy at dreamscape.com
Fri Jun 22 03:05:38 UTC 2007
Barry Margolin wrote:
> 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?
>
Yes, performance.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list