Industry best practices (was Re: large organization nameservers

Paul Vixie vixie at
Fri Aug 10 04:55:59 UTC 2007

dougb at (Doug Barton) writes:

> ... I took this a step further and worked (together with others) on a
> patch to restrict the size of DNS answers to < 512 by returning a random
> selection of any RR set larger than that.

note that this sounds like a DNS protocol violation, and usually is.  every
time someone sent me a BIND patch adding this kind of deliberate instability
(see RFC 1794 for an example) i said "no".
Paul Vixie

More information about the NANOG mailing list