Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 02:00:05 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: Would love to see reconsideration for domain and search On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:37:53PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > I saw from a different thread that musl doesn't or didn't do TCP > fallbacks - is that still the case? I know we need that for things > like large multi-SRV sets (which I do not expect libc to support), and > we have some people who have large A sets (which I do expect libc to > support). Indeed. The only way you can overflow the UDP size limit with the records the stub resolver uses is with a max-length CNAME pointing to a max or near-max length record with little or no overlap to allow for compression. Of course you might run out of space for all the address results in other cases, but the truncated packet will still have usable results. While I'm not aware of any official document to this effect, for practical purposes you just have to avoid making names that long. There are too many nameservers that don't do TCP at all, as well as locked-down networks that don't allow TCP except on a few specific ports, to be able to rely on doing DNS over TCP. Naturally other non-stub-resolver things like zone transfers may need TCP, but that's outside the domain of the stub resolver. Note that the libc res_*/dn_*/ns_* APIs should be capable of working with longer messages over TCP as long as you setup the socket and do the send/recv yourself. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.