Subject: Re: Linux ip codeReply-to: (fwd)
To: Darren Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Ronald Khoo <ronald@cpm.COM.MY>
Date: 05/08/1995 10:21:06
> > >> I am amused by the comment that said (paraphrased) "BSD error
> > >> semantics caused DNS queries to dead nameservers to slow down", when
> > >> there is code in the BIND client code that specifically does a
> > >> connect on a UDP socket when only one nameserver is being queried.
> > >
> * If we have sent queries to at least two servers,
> * however, we don't want to remain connected,
> * as we wish to receive answers from the first
> * server to respond.
> Now, on the bind mailing list, there was more discussion of what is
> happening here and the right way to do it. One comment was, that if
> the ICMP error packet received matches the last packet sent to the
> socket then report the error even if the socket isn't connected, else
> just discard it.
> Is that, perhaps, a more reasonable way for NetBSD to behave ?
Perhaps the obvious solution of having one connected socket per
nameserver would be the best non-hacky solution ? Since the API
a) requires connection for error reports and b) is well stabilised in
this respect, surely the correct solution is to fix the application
rather than hack the API ?
We're decades past 20 fd limits per process, aren't we ?
/* email@example.com +60 3 241 5232 | firstname.lastname@example.org +44 181 371 1000 */