Hi Wouter, To me TTL is useful, obviously. :-) Also, it is already available, but not exposed through the libunbound interface. However, I can always work around it if it's not exposed.
Thanks, David On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:08 AM, W.C.A. Wijngaards <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > Not sure what to do about this. Unbound already returns the TTL inside > the 'raw packet data' chunk in the result. I understand that that is > not really easy, since you need (say) ldns_wire2pkt to get at that TTL. > > Is this bloat or is this useful? > > Best regards, > Wouter > > > On 11/14/2009 06:08 AM, David Hubbard wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> This patch adds a call to free(ttl) that balances the call to >> calloc(). The previous patch creates a memory leak. >> >> This patch also moves 'unsigned *ttl' to the end of struct ub_result, >> so that binaries linked against libunbound.so will still work. >> >> David >> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM, David Hubbard >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Ondrej, >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Ondřej Surý <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 23:55, David Hubbard <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to get the TTL value for a DNS request. I looked at what it >>>>> would take to add this to struct ub_result and it doesn't look too >>>>> difficult - patch attached. >>>> >>>> Please don't change the existing API. In this case it could be solved >>>> just by recompiling all dependant programs, but generally changing >>>> existing API causes a lot of troubles (beware not adding new functions >>>> and data types - but really changing existing functions). >>> >>> I agree - this patch breaks the ABI. I don't think this is an urgent >>> matter, so would it be acceptable to put this in the queue for >>> whenever the next major API changes happen? >>> >>> I do want to use the full validating resolver (especially dnssec). I >>> also find the libunbound interface simpler, so my code is easy to >>> read. I'm trying to replace code that used a different dns resolver >>> library that has gone dormant and doesn't have dnssec support. >>> >>> One possibility is to place unsigned* ttl at the end of struct >>> ub_result - then existing applications would not break. I think it >>> "looks nicer" where it is. Either way, it doesn't really matter. >>> >>> Thanks for your consideration, >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Unbound-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAksKbS4ACgkQkDLqNwOhpPhMQQCgnkNJqLmQq7nUOPAEhDqOYF+G > oMUAn0kaxb4ZbcQiPGyVP3QHXU+FmiXV > =Lt49 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ Unbound-users mailing list [email protected] http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users
