lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #56280, lwIP DNS need to support CNAME...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #56280: lwIP DNS need to support CNAME Resource Record
Submitter: | Gao Qingshui <kevingao> | ||
Submitted: | Tue 07 May 2019 07:32:55 AM UTC | ||
Category: | DNS | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | Feature Request | Status: | Fixed |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | goldsimon |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | git head |
Fri 26 Jun 2020 06:04:43 AM UTC, comment #5: |
Chris Nocker <nocker> |
Mon 18 May 2020 02:37:34 PM UTC, comment #4: There are situations in which the CNAME is required. I'm currently working on one such project. Each unit of my product cooks up a hostname using a unique secret number as part of the name. It then does a DNS lookup to get the CNAME, which it then stores for future use. That CNAME is periodically refreshed by another DNS lookup. The CNAME must also be added to our client's whitelist of allowed external destinations. So the CNAME is certainly need for this case. |
Jeff Thompson <jeffthompson> |
Tue 04 Feb 2020 09:18:49 PM UTC, comment #3:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 14 May 2019 07:36:47 PM UTC, comment #2: Ping? |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 07 May 2019 06:04:09 PM UTC, comment #1: I don't see why. A recursive DNS server should do the recursion and answer all records up to A/AAAA (or whatever asked) records. |
Sylvain Rochet <gradator> |
Tue 07 May 2019 07:32:55 AM UTC, original submission:
As most of the DNS Standard query response contains CNAME resource record to declare the alias name of the domain name which need to be resolved, so I think lwIP need to support CNAME RR, else most of the DNS domain name resolution would be failed to make the DNS APIs unusable, such as getaddrinfo. |
Gao Qingshui <kevingao> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 5 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020-06-30 | nocker | Attached File | - | Added 0001-DNS-Allowed-processing-of-a-DNS-response-that-contai.patch, #49395 | |
2020-06-26 | nocker | Attached File | - | Added dns.c, #49374 | |
2020-02-04 | goldsimon | Status | None | Fixed | |
Assigned to | None | goldsimon | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed |
Powered by Savane 3.13-f8d8.
Corresponding source code
Hi, I attached a file to address CNAME DNS resolution in DNS responses. Is this what I was meant to do?