Hi YingAn, please stop top posting on this mailing list. Otherwise I will ignore emails from you. Follow the proper mailing list etiquette.
> Thanks for your hint. Indeed two patches created, but one is > 0001-service-don-t-keep-ref-to-a-removed-network.patch, inside it writes: > From a7d29e4866c9d7a4eed2f550c1ac7c8c89b56245 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Pekka Pessi <[email protected]> > .... > > But that patch should already accepted long ago, curious why it was generated > on my side... so I just commit the 2nd patch. > Yes, it should be called EDNS0 according to RFC2671. You still need to explain why do you think this is the right way. As explained in other threads, there are pros and cons for EDNS0 support. Currently the DNS proxy inside ConnMan doesn't support DNS over TCP. And there is also an issue with many home routers that have builtin DNS forwarding or caches. They don't support DNS over TCP either. In all these cases EDNS0 is really needed. Regards Marcel _______________________________________________ connman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
