--- Begin Message ---
On 18/07/2023 23.53, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 10:25:01PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
It’s exactly like the serve-stale. The inception of the protocol
change is driven by this isolated incident. That’s not a proper
design, that’s slapping more bandaids on the camel.
I don't even see a "protocol change" here. A bogus (possibly forged)
answer arrived from server A, perhaps server B should be tried.
I agree that at least one retry to a different IP seems nice before
returning SERVFAIL, similarly to the case of reply not coming (in
time). I thought popular resolvers do something like that already. But
as mentioned, it's better to be careful about the overall amount of
retries (which is not trivial to balance really).
As for papering over issues, ideally most problems would not be solved
as response to "internet breaking" for common users, though I'd
generally try to avoid adding workarounds. Serious deployments should
have monitoring to detect such problems, or possibly even approaches
like this (though I'm not so sure):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting/
--Vladimir | knot-resolver.cz
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
dns-operations mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
