Can someone from Amazon please answer.

Fri Aug 26 22:17:12 UTC 2016

I would love to hear Amazon's response to this very question!

On 8/23/16 4:37 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> I'm curious.  What are you trying to achieve by blocking EDNS version
> negotiation?  Is it really too hard to return BADVERS to a EDNS
> query with version != 0 along with the version of EDNS you support
> in the version field?  Are you deliberately trying to prevent the
> IETF from deciding to bump the EDNS version in the future?  Do you
> have firewalls that have this behaviour hard coded?  Do you even
> test for RFC compliance?
>
> Mark
>
> lostoncampus.com.au. @205.251.195.156 (ns-924.awsdns-51.net.): dns=ok edns=ok edns1=timeout edns at 512=ok ednsopt=ok edns1opt=timeout do=ok ednsflags=ok optlist=ok,nsid,subnet signed=ok ednstcp=ok
> lostoncampus.com.au. @205.251.192.78 (ns-78.awsdns-09.com.): dns=ok edns=ok edns1=timeout edns at 512=ok ednsopt=ok edns1opt=timeout do=ok ednsflags=ok optlist=ok,nsid,subnet signed=ok ednstcp=ok
> lostoncampus.com.au. @205.251.196.198 (ns-1222.awsdns-24.org.): dns=ok edns=ok edns1=timeout edns at 512=ok ednsopt=ok edns1opt=timeout do=ok ednsflags=ok optlist=ok,nsid,subnet signed=ok ednstcp=ok
> lostoncampus.com.au. @205.251.199.20 (ns-1812.awsdns-34.co.uk.): dns=ok edns=ok edns1=timeout edns at 512=ok ednsopt=ok edns1opt=timeout do=ok ednsflags=ok optlist=ok,nsid,subnet signed=ok ednstcp=ok
>