Open Resolver Dataset Update

[jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch)]

Tom,

The main criteria is the RCODE=0 vs RCODE=5 refused.

I exposed the Recursion Available bit this last week to cover more of the use cases, but many servers provide a very large referral to root.

You are correct in that your system doesn't provide that so should be less "visible" as a result.  I haven't coded everything to pull out that level of data from the responses.

Of the responding IPs, a fair percentage 89% respond with the RA bit set.  I'm working to close the gap on exposing the direct data of those last 11% in a more detailed bit of information, including if it provides a root referral or otherwise.

Hope this helps,

- Jared

On Apr 9, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Tom Laermans <tom.laermans at phyxia.net> wrote:

> Jared,
> 
> If you mean there can be a referral with RCODE=0 and Recursion Available
> = 0, you'll need a third column actually documenting if there is a
> referral.
> 
> This server is listed in ORP:
> 
> $ dig www.google.be @195.160.166.139
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> www.google.be @195.160.166.139
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 615
> ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
> ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;www.google.be.                 IN      A
> 
> ;; Query time: 6 msec
> ;; SERVER: 195.160.166.139#53(195.160.166.139)
> ;; WHEN: Tue Apr  9 14:58:21 2013
> ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 31
> 
> RCODE=0, Recursion available=0:
> 	
> http://openresolverproject.org/search.cgi?mode=search6&search_for=195.160.166.0%2F24
> 
> Hence my question, what is it doing wrong?
> 
> Tom
> 
> On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 07:05 -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> The referral, including a referral to root can be quite large. Even larger than answering a normal query. I have broken the data out for the purpose of letting people identify the IPs that provide that. 
>> 
>> Jared Mauch
>> 
>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:08 AM, Tom Laermans <tom.laermans at phyxia.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> As far as I know, responding either NOERROR or REFUSED produces packets of the same size.
>