Hi, So, for 5.0, there would be a compile time option to choose c-ares or unbound, or are we considering a clean break? If we keep both, which one would be considered default? I can imagine unbound when build support is present, otherwise c-ares?
Thanks, Jaap > On 21 Aug 2023, at 22:47, Gerald Combs <ger...@wireshark.org> wrote: > > Sounds fine to me. We had overlapping support for c-ares and ADNS for a > while, so this isn't new territory. Can you open an issue and set the > milestone to "Wireshark 5.x" so this doesn't get lost? > > On 8/20/23 12:08 PM, Jaap Keuter wrote: >> Hi, >> So we’ve been using the c-ares name resolver for a while now and it’s >> serving its purpose. >> However, this is not the only one out there. DNS technologies have evolved >> somewhat and c-ares does not provide for them. >> Would it make sense to start looking into using libunbound[1] as a >> replacement for c-ares to bring these technologies in reach. >> From a cursory look it seems that the current structure can be retained >> while shoehorning in unbound. >> Thoughts? It could be something we could try to achieve for 5.0. >> [1] https://nlnetlabs.nl/projects/unbound/about/ >> Jaap ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
