dlc at halibut.com
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 sf1.isc.org>,
> > Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at isc.org> 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