Raymond Chandler wrote:
On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
Raymond Chandler wrote:
On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
Hmm, where does it say that, after the lookup, one cannot use the same
IP address as before? :)
Section 4 of RFC3263 as quoted in my first email....
"The procedures here MUST be done exactly once per transaction,
where transaction is as defined in [1].
"
Raymond, sure. But do the "procedures here" preclude one from
choosing the same host given that both the priorities and weights are
the same for all the hosts?
well, not exactly, in fact... every so often, you will end up choosing
the same 1 out of 4 hosts twice in a row at random
Exactly! :)
but the procedures basically say to choose one at random
Right, but isn't the generator pseudo-random, instead? (If one takes
"random" literally, pseudo-random would violate the spec!) What prevents
one from using the "right" pseudo-random generator?
That said, I'm really just about done with this thread since I don't
personally agree with the spec in this case anyway since stale nonce
checking makes sense to avoid replay attacks, etc. Although, I
haven't looked at the specs to see if checking for stale nonces breaks
any specs... that might be an interesting search ;-)
I am going to try to find an appropriate IETF mailing list to ask some
questions about this random SRV stuff and will repost here once I have
some additional info.
Thanks for trying to keep me honest, though! :)
Carlos Antunes
Nowthor Corporation
_______________________________________________
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
