-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
2020 text #102
2020 text #102
Conversation
jelu
commented
May 24, 2019
- Add 2020 text
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good! I made a few suggestions.
I believe so, though the current 2020 text uses quite mild language for TCP/53 support ("should") |
I'm not reading it as that and there are only a few "should", if you think it's too mild then please go ahead and change. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good enough for now, I will look at adding web tester for auths in separate PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These are very minor edits, please feel free to accept or reject them.
For the resolver side it's more or less the same requirement as for the | ||
authoritative, **_honor [RFC 7766](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7766)_** | ||
_(DNS over TCP port 53)_ and use an EDNS buffer size _(~1220 bytes)_ that | ||
will not cause fragmentation. _Remember to check your firewall(s)!_ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we need to split this into:
Resolvers acting as clients should set default EDNS(0) buffer size to 1220 and fall back to TCP...
For resolvers acting as servers, it's more or less ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please suggest full text.
---------------------------- | ||
|
||
As a DNS software vendor it is important to be **standards compliant** and | ||
to use a _**default EDNS buffer size** (~1220)_ that will not cause | ||
fragmentation. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No Don't Fragment bit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think it's usual that DNS software set IP level don't fragment, but if you have examples please add text.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- Add 2020 text - Apply suggestions from code review Co-Authored-By: Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Co-Authored-By: Vladimír Čunát <v@cunat.cz> Co-Authored-By: Matthijs Mekking <github@pletterpet.nl> Co-Authored-By: Ralph Dolmans <ralph@nlnetlabs.nl> Co-Authored-By: Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Co-Authored-By: Vicky Risk <vicky@isc.org> Co-Authored-By: Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>