> Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit : > >Nothing "relies". It's just if you will receive addresses in some order, > >you should not reorder them unless you know what order they should be > >delivered in (e.g. ordering via RFC3484)
On 01.06.06 18:30, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Where have you seen the resolver should not reorder the addresses? Any > pointer? no. I just thought that there's no logical reason to reordering addresses if resolver does not know network topology. So I'd like to know the reason for reordering. Is it the way how resolver manipulates addresses, so it stores them in reverse order? > The relevant documents for the resolver are the RFCs. Have a look at > RFC1034, pages 10 and 11: > > | A domain name identifies a node. Each node has a set of resource > | information, which may be empty. The set of resource information > | associated with a particular name is composed of separate resource > | records (RRs). The order of RRs in a set is not significant, and need > | not be preserved by name servers, resolvers, or other parts of the > | DNS. > > So the glibc is fully compliant with the RFC. There is nothing wrong > with it. except it spoils any attempt to sort RRs so they are in network topology order :-( -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
