[Pdns-users] recursor 4.2.0-beta1 fails to resolve p4.no

Fri May 10 15:14:32 UTC 2019

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:13:32PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:

> 
> Hello,
> 
> please do not use html mail for mailing lists. Especially if the
> plain/text alternatie is empty. Below you can see what the mail looks
> like in mutt. Thanks!
> 
> The copying semantics of the RC (and CD) bits are described in 

make that RD

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6895
> 
> In general 1034 and 1035 only cover the basics. Large parts of their
> content has been superseded, clarified, extended and what not in other
> RFCs. https://powerdns.org/dns-camel gives an overview of all DNS
> related RFCs.
> 
> Reading them is already a huge tasks. Let alone completely
> understanding and implementing them.
> 
> I believe everybody involved would be better of if you just use one of
> the available authoratative servers. Preferably powerdns, of course ;-)
> 
> 	-Otto
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 09:19:47AM +0000, Jørgen Hovland ☁️ wrote:
> 
> > <html><body><div>Hello Steinar,</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>> if I query without the "Recursion Desired" flag, the flag is still set in the reply</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for that. Ill remove it.</div><div>(I don't see in the RFC that it shouldnt be allowed to include it, but it doesnt make any sense)</div><div><br></div><div>> There are multiple problems ... https://ednscomp.isc.org/ednscomp</div><div><br></div><div>We do not have any plans to implement EDNS today, so I just wanted to make sure EDNS-clients don't break compability.</div><div>I was notified that rfc6891/edns require format error and empty response when NOT supporting EDNS, so it just looked like a catch 22 compared to the original dns rfc which got me a bit confused.<br></div><div><br></div><div><pre style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0
> >  px; text-transform: none; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">
> > <br></pre></div>Jørgen<br><br>
> > At 08:08 10/05/2019 (UTC), sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:<br>
> > <br><meta charset="utf-8">> (I am the author of the mentioned dns software)<br>
> > ><br>
> > > According to RFC1034, including the request in the response seem to be<br>
> > > required.  Is there something I am misunderstanding here ?<br>
> > <br>
> > There are multiple problems with p4.no, and you can see it with the<br>
> > ISC EDNS compliance tester:<br>
> > <br>
> >     https://ednscomp.isc.org/ednscomp<br>
> > <br>
> > Note that there are more problems than those related to EDNS handling.<br>
> > For instance, if I query without the "Recursion Desired" flag, the flag<br>
> > is still set in the reply, which shouldn't happen:<br>
> > <br>
> > % dig +norec +noad +noedns soa p4.no @213.179.58.78<br>
> > ..<br>
> > ;; Got answer:<br>
> > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 45201<br>
> > ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 5<br>
> > <br>
> > This is the first test that the ISC EDNS compliance tester shows as<br>
> > failing for p4.no.<br>
> > <br>
> > Steinar Haug, AS2116<br>
> > <br>
> > </body></html>
> > 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pdns-users mailing list
> > Pdns-users at mailman.powerdns.com
> > https://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pdns-users mailing list
> Pdns-users at mailman.powerdns.com
> https://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users