Hey Simon, your patch surely makes sense.
On Mon, 2021-04-05 at 21:38 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote: > Except that this all started because some clients don't retry from the > same ID/source port and treating them as a new query that can be > answered when the existing query for the same name completes fails > because that means dnsmasq never sees retries from this type of client, > and it relies on those retries to work in the face of packet loss. > > https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2021q1/014697.html I see. The "misbehaving" clients out there (a) worked pre-2.83 and (b) we cannot rely on them being "fixed". I'm intentionally putting the keywords in quotes because of: On Mon, 2021-04-05 at 21:38 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote: > What's a "real" retry. I'm not sure there's an RFC that says it has to > be from the same source port and query-ID, [...] Too bad, I figured we could keep up with saving some bandwidth but I can perfectly live with the fact that you consider the timeout I suggested as a too-risky feature as in it could break user's systems in ways which are difficult to define. Unless we could get a retry feature baked into dnsmasq sometime in the future. Best regards, Dominik _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
