[nsd-users] nsd does not fallback to axfr when ixfr doesn't work

[Matthijs Mekking]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Ralf,

Ralf Weber wrote:
...
>>> So this means that NSD should indeed try with AXFR when it gets an
>>> error, as I understand it.
>>
>> Yes it does, you are right.  Interoperability goes both ways :-)
> Hmm it doesn't or did I miss something - I read this as it will do it in
> future.

Yes, Wouter meant to say: Yes NSD should do this. Currently, NSD is not
following RFC 1995 with respect to AXFR fallback.

> 
> Anyway I have gotten a reply from Nominum and they will fix this, but
> also say that NSD should have retried with an AXFR. It should have
> worked if NSD would have used TCP as transport, but I don't think there
> is an option in the config file to tell NSD to only use TCP for IXFR.

This will be in the next release.

My question to the nsd-users list would be if there is interest in AXFR
fallback when the server does not understand IXFR. My opinion is that
NSD should support it, because we strife to be RFC-compliant.

- - Matthijs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFItmZfIXqNzxRs6egRAqBXAJ9iLD0/L+rzW7PVgql341IIvvkDIwCdH/SX
AMh2SXRRlR3iXNOw+OasUow=
=mAb9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----