This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/dns-wg@ripe.net/

[dns-wg] Draft recommendation for limiting the EDNS0 response size on authoritative name servers

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Draft recommendation for limiting the EDNS0 response size on authoritative name servers
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Draft recommendation for limiting the EDNS0 response size on authoritative name servers

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Gijs van den Broek broek at surfnet.nl
Fri Sep 21 15:08:42 CEST 2012

Hi Florian,

> What's your stance on atomic fragments for IPv6?

We did not particularly consider atomic fragments. Could you be a bit more specific?

Kind regards,


Gijs

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Draft recommendation for limiting the EDNS0 response size on authoritative name servers
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Draft recommendation for limiting the EDNS0 response size on authoritative name servers

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ dns-wg Archives ]