Subject: Re: recent 1-6 branch libc and mozilla (etc.)
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
Date: 10/09/2003 22:10:18
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 06:36:28PM +0900, Toru TAKAMIZU wrote:
> Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 02:22:46PM -0400
> Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > [ On Wednesday, October 8, 2003 at 17:53:20 (+0900), Toru TAKAMIZU wrote: ]
> > > Subject: Re: recent 1-6 branch libc and mozilla (etc.)
> > >
> > > The cause seems to be that my nameserver does not return authority and
> > > additional sections. If I change my nameserver to a decent one,
> > > mozilla works fine even with rev 126.96.36.199 (lib/libc/net/gethnamaddr.c).
> > Hmmm... very interesting! Which nameserver was causing the problem?
> djbdns, specifically dnscache in this case.
> >From http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/dnscache.html
> dnscache's responses are generally much smaller than BIND's
> responses. They do not include authority records (NS records
> of the source name servers and SOA records for negative answers)
> or additional records (A records relevant to NS or MX records).
> When the answer section is truncated by UDP length limits, it
> is eliminated entirely.
What do the RFCs says for this ?
if dnscache is OK, we'll have to fix libc.
Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference