On 27-sep-2007, at 3:33, Mark Andrews wrote:
So your issue that the results are inconsistent is certainly real.
I'd say that the best way to avoid this is not having a search domain at all, or at the very least not several.
Which is a totally unreasonable suggestion.
It's not. Even without IPv6, having search domains means you can get unexpected results. If that's not acceptable, don't complain, but put a period behind your FQDNs.
The problem here is not the search but different stoping critera depending apon the address families supported by the host or requested by the application.
We wrote a API that failed to account for the usual use senario. In fact the guidance in there is the direct opposite of what should be done with the usual use senario.
I thought the solution would be hard or would be suboptimal in the common case, but I think that doesn't have to be so.
In my example, MacOS would go through the search domains and keep going until it found AAAA records for IPv6 or IPv4+IPv6 applications (and presumably look for A records if there were no AAAA records and IPv4 was present/requested also).
So basically, both the "answers = 0, noerror" and "nxdomain" responses trigger trying the next search domain. If we change this to "answers = 0, noerror" means try the same FQDN again for an A record, and "nxdomain" means move on to the next search domain, the results for different permutations of IP version availability would all result in connecting to the same FQDN = the first one with an address that's compatible with current connectivity, rather than the first one with an AAAA record if there is IPv6 connectivity.
I'm saying we should go back and fix the specification for getaddrinfo() so that it accounts for searching.
Volunteers...?
We should also add a AI_NOSEARCH flag so that searching is controlled directly rather than indirectly.
That's what the period terminating a domain name is for.
I've set Reply-To to ipv6@xxxxxxxx as this is more approriate for 6man.
No, it's a DNS issue, so it should go to dnsop. dnsop people: see discussion between Mark, Keith and me that started under the subject "renumbering" on the ietf discussion list.
Everyone: feel free to prune some lists when you respond. :-) _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf