lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Tasks: task #14274, dns: do we need to separate IPv4...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #14274: dns: do we need to separate IPv4 servers from IPv6 servers?
Submitter: | Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> | ||
Submitted: | Wed 14 Dec 2016 09:15:01 PM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Should Start On: | Wed 14 Dec 2016 12:00:00 AM UTC |
Should be Finished on: | Wed 14 Dec 2016 12:00:00 AM UTC | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | None | Privacy: | Public |
Percent Complete: | 0% | Assigned to: | None |
Open/Closed: | Open | Planned Release: | None |
Effort: | 0.00 |
Wed 21 Dec 2016 01:42:04 PM UTC, comment #4: |
Jan Breuer <jan_breuer> |
Wed 21 Dec 2016 01:22:00 PM UTC, comment #3: Ok, the problem here is not the implementation itself (one or more lists) but the specification of behaviour. Later, we can develop the implementation easily.
|
Jan Breuer <jan_breuer> |
Tue 20 Dec 2016 09:01:37 PM UTC, comment #2: Of course that should still work. I just think the current situation is not ideal where the server will be overwritten from IPv4 to IPv6 and back again, depending on the time when your DHCP(v4) lease expires and when you'll get the next RA...
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon>![]() |
Tue 20 Dec 2016 07:10:42 PM UTC, comment #1: We still need to support AAAA requests from IPv4 DNS servers and vice versa. From my point of view, we don't need two lists. It will just complicate things. |
Jan Breuer <jan_breuer> |
Wed 14 Dec 2016 09:15:01 PM UTC, original submission:
Currently, both dhcp (ipv4) and dn6 (ipv6) can set servers to DNS. We might have to keep a dedicated list of servers per IP version and request both protocols in parallel for dual-stack devices...?
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon>![]() |
No files currently attached
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.
I forget the multi-netif situation which you mention in some other thread.
There is just problem on cleanup. We should keep track the source netif of the item in the list and properly solve situation, where two or more netifs add same item to the list. After netif down, we should cleanup only items owned by that netif.
Another task is order of items for DNS lookup function.