This is the mail archive of the
libc-help@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: RFC 6724
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Phillip Hellewell <sshock at gmail dot com>
- Cc: libc-help at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 18:43:44 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFC 6724
- References: <CA+dWQFo-rHBGgAtBR54AHpj2mk5aG==2kmWrL7RuYD_KqAuSSA@mail.gmail.com> <87lg5yr17v.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <CA+dWQFppeQKhKJqCj=PqaPD+=tDwNexHVPVeGXo+Um6wRYNoQg@mail.gmail.com>
* Phillip Hellewell:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 4:20 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> RFC 3484 has always been rather problematic (particularly Rule 9, which
>> we do not implement).
>>
>> I seriously doubt that there is any benefit from address sorting. It's
>> a layering violation, and it makes renumbering harder because you now
>> need to consider the impact on address sorting. Its core assumptions
>> are also quite wrong on many networks (e.g., private addresses often
>> have less georeplication than public Internet service, so public
>> addresses are closer by).
>>
>> In any case, I think address sorting should be performed by the caching
>> DNS resolver, not the stub resolver.
>
> An administrator of a given machine may not have any control over the
> DNS server, yet they should still be able to control address order,
> e..g., to prefer IPv4 over IPv6 or vice-versa.
If you can edit /etc/gai.conf, you can install Unbound or dnsmasq, too.
>> Do you have a setup that actually relies on address sorting? Do you
>> have any examples where DNS provides a set of addresses for a single
>> name with different labels/precedence, so that sorting the addresses
>> actually has an effect?
>
> Yes, this happens all the time. Look no further than google.com. It
> has both A and AAAA. As a system administrator, I should be able to
> set up my prefix policy table to prefer IPv4 over IPv6 if desired.
> That is just one example.
Do you have another example that does not involve sorting merely by
protocol? Something that you have encountered personally?
> One should be able to control address order without having to set up
> and run their own special DNS server/proxy/whatever.
To be honest, I don't see any other way to get full RFC 6724 support
because the RFC requires various things for which I do not see direct
kernel support.
If we disable or limit sorting in glibc, at least you will be able to
get RFC 6724 support with a suitable NSS service module or caching DNS
server.
Thanks,
Florian