Re: TCP response with truncated bit set?

[Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>]

> 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.

	Well there was always a full AXFR and extract the answer from
	that.
 
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org

--
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/>