On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Manuel Kasper <mk at neon1 dot net> wrote:
> On 22.02.2010, at 12:15, N.J. Mann wrote:
>> "... Unfortunately, although the EDNS standard has been around for a
>> long time there are still many "middleboxes" (firewalls, broadband
>> routers, etc.) that have problems with these larger responses."
>> So, will Dnsmasq need update as well?
> Not as far as I know
dnsmasq is fine with EDNS. From the man page:
Specify the largest EDNS.0 UDP packet which is supported by the DNS
forwarder. Defaults to 4096, which is the RFC5625-recommended size.
m0n0wall uses the default.