BIND 9.11 no longer respects edns-udp-size?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

>> Stéphane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic.fr> wrote:
>>> Does minimal-responses make sense for an authoritative name server?
>>> (Note there was no glue involved.)

>On Mar 11, 2019, at 7:12 AM, Tony Finch <dot at dotat.at> wrote:
>> I think it helps reduce fragmentation if the max-udp-size is larger than
>> the MSS, but apart from that it probably doesn't make much difference.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, clients and resolvers generally re-query for
>> additional records when they are needed, and they already have the
>> delegation records which should be the same as the authority records, so
>> it seems pointless to me to add records to authoritative responses when
>> they aren't used.

On 12.03.19 08:18, Chris Buxton wrote:
>Enabling minimal-responses on an authoritative server will break any other
> server with a stub zone declaration with this authoritative server listed
> as master.  The implementation of stub zones assumes that an SOA query
> will retrieve all of the required information (SOA, NS, and supporting
> A/AAAA records) to successfully insert the zone apex into the cache.

isn't SOA response limited in an ongoing RFC draft?
that would bereak stub zones too...

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
- Have you got anything without Spam in it?
- Well, there's Spam egg sausage and Spam, that's not got much Spam in it.