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:[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]> 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.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
