nanog mailing list archives
Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?
From: Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 10:43:02 -0700
For DNS to be usable, folks have to permit TCP DNS to work. I know of some service providers that filter TCP DNS connections. UDP packets are not big enough for many responses from an whois-type request.
TCP fallback is part of the DNS protocol. Any provider who blocks it is already losing. We don't need to pay attention to them in the design, they will fix their nets or they will lose more than they already are. Not our problem.
Current thread:
- Why Vadim likes statics, (continued)
- Why Vadim likes statics bmanning (Apr 24)
- Re: Why Vadim likes statics Eric M. Carroll (Apr 24)
- BGP vs. static routing (Re: Why Vadim likes statics) Sean Doran (Apr 24)
- Re: BGP vs. static routing (Re: Why Vadim likes statics) bmanning (Apr 25)
- Re: BGP vs. static routing (Re: Why Vadim likes statics) Paul A Vixie (Apr 25)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Curtis Villamizar (Apr 24)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Randy Bush (Apr 24)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Brett Watson (Apr 24)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Paul A Vixie (Apr 24)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Karl Denninger, MCSNet (Apr 29)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Alan Hannan (Apr 29)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Paul Traina (Apr 29)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? bmanning (Apr 28)