minimal-response, additional-from-...

David Carmean dlc at
Fri Jul 6 06:03:25 UTC 2007

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:15:23PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > In article <f5cusf$b9c$1 at>,
> >  Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at> wrote:
> > > 	The key word above was "referral".  They are not returning
> > > 	referrals so there is no RFC requirement to return anything
> > > 	in the additional section.
> > 
> > I think the OP is claiming that including the additional section is a 
> > best practice, not necessarily a requirement.  Is there a good excuse 
> > why someone might disable this, as they apparently do?
> 	It consumes bandwidth.  In many cases it is ignored/rejected
> 	by the client who just re-queries for it.  It does break
> 	stub zones but they are not part of the protocol anyway.

Which config, exactly, "breaks stub zones"?  

I'm using minimal-response on the few servers I control; one large zone 
at work is served by a set of AD-integrated MS DNS servers, which at 
one time numbered 46(!).  Every recursive query to my servers for 
names in that zone resulted in a TCP retry and the impact was significant.

More information about the bind-users mailing list