BIND 9.2.1 and TCP

[Mark Damrose]

<zack.nash at amd.com> wrote in message news:aqcgls$5cp$1 at isrv4.isc.org...
>
> The request is for a single A record, ( nash 3600 IN A 192.168.0.1 ),
would this be too large to fit in a UDP packet.

Probably not, but...
What's the fully qualified name?
How many name servers?
How many A records for those name server?

> Also we have BIND 8 servers that serve the same information and they do
not revert to >TCP for these records.  Could this possibly be a
misconfiguration on my part,

Yes it could, but you haven't specified any information about how you have
it configured.  Do you have a firewall between the clients and the server
blocking udp?  on the server? on the clients?

> or is there no way to restrict the server to only using udp?

The server should respond in whatever manner the client makes the request.

> Thanks,
> Zack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark.Andrews at isc.org [mailto:Mark.Andrews at isc.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:25 PM
> To: Nash, Zack
> Cc: bind-users at isc.org
> Subject: Re: BIND 9.2.1 and TCP
>
>
>
> > Hello,
> > I have noticed that my BIND 9.2.1 servers are requesting that my DNS Cl
> > ients use TCP rather than UDP to resolve hostnames, for all queries
against t
> > his server.
> > My understanding is that UDP is used unless the packet is too large the
> > n the server will request a TCP connection from the client.  I have seen
this
> >  occur for queries of a single A record.  Is this behavior a bug or is
this a
> >  new standard that is being implemented with the advent of BIND 9?
> > Thanks,
> > Zack
>
> Well the answers must be too big to fit in the space available in a
> UDP response.  Remember the authority section can also trigger TC.
>
> Mark
> --
> Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at isc.org
>
>