nanog mailing list archives
Re: MX Record Theories
From: Bobby Mac <bobbyjim () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:04:47 -0500
Not entirely on subject but.... I thought that allowing DNS queries to occur via TCP is mission critical for simple mail routing. We ran across this back in the day at @Home Network. Firewall rules were changed to not allow port 53 TCP. This severely affected sending mail to large distribution lists. Here is what we found and forgive me if I don't go into too much detail as it was almost 10 years a go. If you add enough recipients to an email, each domain within the send line needs to have an associated MX record. DNS by default starts with UDP which has a limit to the datagram size (64bit). A flag is placed in the header which then requires the request to be sent via TCP (160bit V4). Now that single query can be split up into many different packets providing that the request is more than the 160 bit and obviously IPV6 offers even more information contained in a single packet. -BobbyJim On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:01 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:03:59 PDT, gb10hkzo-nanog () yahoo co uk said:would be most interested to hear NANOG theories on the variety of MX record practices out there, namely, how come there seem to be so many ways employed to achieve the same goal ?The trick here is that it isn't always *exactly* "the same goal". There's multiple mail system architectures and design philosophies. One often overlooked but very important design point for the *large* providers: % dig aol.com mx ;; ANSWER SECTION: aol.com. 2805 IN MX 15 mailin-01.mx.aol.com. aol.com. 2805 IN MX 15 mailin-02.mx.aol.com. ... ;; WHEN: Tue May 26 14:40:41 2009 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 507 That 507 is critically important if you want to receive e-mail from sites with fascist firewalls that block EDNS0 and/or TCP/53. 5 bytes left. ;)
Current thread:
- MX Record Theories gb10hkzo-nanog (May 26)
- Re: MX Record Theories Alex H. Ryu (May 26)
- Re: MX Record Theories Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: MX Record Theories Mark Andrews (May 26)
- Re: MX Record Theories Bobby Mac (May 28)
- Re: MX Record Theories David Conrad (May 28)
- Re: MX Record Theories Mark Andrews (May 28)
- Re: MX Record Theories William Herrin (May 26)
- Message not available
- Re: MX Record Theories gb10hkzo-nanog (May 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: MX Record Theories gb10hkzo-nanog (May 27)
- Message not available
- Re: MX Record Theories gb10hkzo-nanog (May 28)
- Message not available