Re: Firewall question
From: Chris (never@work)
Date: 03/15/03
- Next message: al: "Re: Firewall question"
- Previous message: Rick: "Re: Zone Labs Pro question"
- In reply to: Lars M. Hansen: "Re: Firewall question"
- Next in thread: al: "Re: Firewall question"
- Reply: al: "Re: Firewall question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Chris" <never@work> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:10:22 -0000
"Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
news:bbm67v4d018iqai5ceia28e3iff4lh5spp@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:27:55 -0500, PES spoketh
>
> >Me too, I find it hard to believe that a udp req could net a tcp reply.
> >Obviously the dns client don't know the size of the response in advance
and
> >would therefore issue the req as std udp.
> >
>
> From RFC 1035:
> "Messages carried by UDP are restricted to 512 bytes (not counting the
> IP or UDP headers). Longer messages are truncated and the TC bit is set
> in the header."
>
> I assume (never seen it happen) that if the TC bit is set, the client
> may re-issue the query over TCP, hence both the request and reply will
> be transmitted via TCP rather than UDP.
>
> Probably doesn't happen too often ...
>
> Lars M. Hansen
> http://www.hansenonline.net
> (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
This had opened a can of worms hasn't it?? Anyway, you are quite correct
about the TCP thing. I've certainly learned something new today.
Cheers all.
Chris.
- Next message: al: "Re: Firewall question"
- Previous message: Rick: "Re: Zone Labs Pro question"
- In reply to: Lars M. Hansen: "Re: Firewall question"
- Next in thread: al: "Re: Firewall question"
- Reply: al: "Re: Firewall question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
