 DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:70
 ·AT&T Southwest
 ·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Google Voice
3 edits | I tested this a bit last night at the house= My results I tested the first time with DNSmasq enabled for DNS on DD-WRT. I could only test my base IP 172.16.0.1. After disabling DNSmasq for DNS I got all the IPs to test. I noticed my DNS picked up quite a bit quicker in response as well.
After I updated to the 11/11/2009 build 13064 stable, it recognized AT&T's anycast DNS of 68.94.156.1, googles 8.8.8.8 and OpenDNS's address (I keep 3 different ones on the linky).
1.) AT&T Anycast 68.94.156.1= Pass was like 3839/4096 (which the .jar file ran told me it wasn't anything to worry about if it was within 300kb of the 4096 which it was.
2.) google's 8.8.8.8= This one didn't accept anything above the 512kb
3.). OpenDNS 208.67.222.222= This one didn't accept anything greater than 512kb.
4.) 68.94.157.1= this one reported the same results as 156.1 did above.
I did confirm that AT&T's anycast 156.1 did accept them though. I also saw a post in the Uverse forum where a few people tested it also and DNSSEC did respond appropriately for them as well.
DNSguy  also commented on the Uverse RG and this issue.
»May 5th DNS changes, uVerse, and you
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
|
| The jar based test is somewhat misleading.
The problem occurs only when the resolver ADVERTISES that it wants DNSSEC replies, AND advertises a reply size larger than it can actually handle, the .jar test doesn't make this distinction.
Thus, eg, both Google Public DNS and OpenDNS don't advertise requests for DNSSEC replies and (at least when Google Public DNS does), are able to receive replies equal to the advertised reply size, so they are actually completely unaffected. |
