[106696] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't know....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Sun Aug 10 12:51:43 2008
From: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <42379.1218383783@nsa.vix.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:51:26 -0400
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 10 Aug 2008, at 11:56, Paul Vixie wrote:
> (here we are discussing dns protocol details on nanog@ again. must
> be sunday.)
(Or alternatively we could just be discussing DNS operations,
something that is entirely on-topic for this list, and conceivably of
interest to the many hundreds of people who are subscribed here but
not to other dns-specific lists. That was certainly my intent, even if
it wasn't yours.)
>> From: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
>>
>> It may be worth clarifying that "not considering TCP mandatory"
>> above is
>> an implementation/operational choice, and not something that seems
>> to be
>> clearly endorsed by RFC 1035, such as it is.
>>
>> There are a lot of people who insist that TCP transport is used for
>> nothing other than zone transfers in the DNS, and they do so not
>> out of
>> concern over potential TCP state explosion on their servers but
>> instead
>> because "that's what the last guy told me". That kind of reasoning
>> doesn't need a bigger posse.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> 4.2. Transport
>> ...
>
> actually, it does (need a bigger posse).
Rhetoric aside, no it doesn't.
Choosing not to implement (or permit, as an operational decision) TCP
because of concerns about state is what you go on to talk about; what
you were actually replying to was the wholesale denial of 53/tcp out
of simple ignorance, which I would be surprised to hear you endorse,
even if it happens to coincide on this instance with the results of
your analysis.
Joe
