[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AXFR "clarify"



Mark Andrews wrote:
AXFR seems to work well. I never understood the TCP requirement, as an
EDNS packet could easily be large enough to contain the entire response,
especially all those small website-only zones. (if it is too small, you
set the TC bit). For reliability we have TSIG now. I think it is not
something that can be changed, or useful in particular, I just think it
is not orthogonal.

	When RFC 1034 was written many UDP implementations did not
	generate UDP checksums.  TCP checksums were not optional.
Mark

For that matter when RFC 1034 was written, EDNS did not exist either.

Danny

--
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/>