Slaves or Forwarders?

Darcy Kevin (FCA) kevin.darcy at
Thu Aug 25 20:25:03 UTC 2016

AXFR over UDP is explicitly undefined. See RFC 5936 Section 4.2. Given this, I would have expected either a FORMERR response (interpreting the request itself as "illegal"), or a NOTIMPL response (interpreting "undefined" as "might have been defined by an RFC subsequent to 5936, but I don't happen to know about it"). NOERROR response with TC is surprising.

IXFR over UDP is defined (RFC 1995 Section 2), but not implemented (apparently) by BIND. So NOTIMPL would seem appropriate.

						- Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users [mailto:bind-users-bounces at] On Behalf Of S Carr
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:09 PM
To: bind-users
Subject: Re: Slaves or Forwarders?

On 25 August 2016 at 21:06, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar at> wrote:
> just IXFRs or AXFRs too?
> Isn't edns over UDP enough in many cases?

>From what I've seen in past testing any attempt to request an AXFR against BIND using UDP gets an immediate TC response.

Please visit to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users at

More information about the bind-users mailing list