Re: TCP response with truncated bit set?

[Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>]

At 19:38 -0500 12/1/04, Mark Andrews wrote:

> >  Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>:

> >  Is there any reasonable action a client can take in this case, or is
> >  giving up the only option?
>
> 	Give up at this point.  There have been a number of proposals
> 	to extend TCP handling to support answers bigger than 64k.

Not being an implementer, but as a protocol wonk, I agree.  There's 
no fall back from that point within the DNS protocol.

'Course - there's a difference between there being "no fall back" and 
"a fall back is not defined."  The truth is the latter, pragmatically 
this means you can't count on consistent implementation of such a 
situation, hence there isn't a reliable "fall back."

One of the principles of protocol layering is that occasionally you 
encounter an error that can't be handled within the plane and should 
design to kick up a level.  (I think this is expressed in 
Tannenbaum's text, unfortunately mine is in two different hemispheres 
from me now.)  This is such a case.

If I encountered this and had all my tools available to me, etc., the 
next layer up would be FTP.  Okay, maybe SCP to the youngsters out 
there.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

I think my jabber client and SMS phone are talking about me behind my back.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>