Question about the ADDITIONAL SECTION

[Mark Andrews]

> 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