maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't know....

Sun Aug 10 16:51:26 UTC 2008

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 at 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