Slaves or Forwarders?

[Mark Andrews]

In message <7db0887c1dbf4ce0b1590ee09d2cb632 at mxph4chrw.fgremc.it>, "Darcy Kevin (FCA)" writes:
> AXFR over UDP is explicitly undefined. See RFC 5936 Section 4.2. Given
> this, I would have expected either a FORMERR response (interpreting the
> request itself as "illegal"), or a NOTIMPL response (interpreting
> "undefined" as "might have been defined by an RFC subsequent to 5936, but
> I don't happen to know about it"). NOERROR response with TC is surprising.

Named sends FORMERR.
 
> IXFR over UDP is defined (RFC 1995 Section 2), but not implemented
> (apparently) by BIND. So NOTIMPL would seem appropriate.

Named sends back the current SOA record over UDP.  This is equivalent
to "up to date" or "retry over TCP as the answer will not fit in
the space available" depending upon the serial in the request.

Mark

> 						- Kevin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bind-users [mailto:bind-users-bounces at lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of S Carr
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:09 PM
> To: bind-users
> Subject: Re: Slaves or Forwarders?
> 
> On 25 August 2016 at 21:06, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar at fantomas.sk> wrote:
> > just IXFRs or AXFRs too?
> > Isn't edns over UDP enough in many cases?
> 
> >From what I've seen in past testing any attempt to request an AXFR against BIND using UDP gets an immediate TC response.
> 
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org