From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Arlott Subject: Re: [RFD] First draft of RDNSS-in-RA support for IPv6 DNS autoconfiguration Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:40:48 +0100 Message-ID: <467D4D10.20002@simon.arlott.org.uk> References: <200706231625.44825@auguste.remlab.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgRGVuaXMtQ291cm1vbnQ=?= , David Stevens , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "C. Scott Ananian" Return-path: Received: from proxima.lp0.eu ([85.158.45.36]:47796 "EHLO proxima.lp0.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754490AbXFWQk7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:40:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 23/06/07 15:47, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > Advertisements it received. I considered storing the *complete* > Router Advertisement messages received and pushing them unparsed to > userland, just to get around the bogus "DNS in the kernel" politics > (hint: it's not a resolver in the kernel, it's just nameserver > addresses being stored). Does anyone really suggest that this would > be a better solution? Yes, but I don't think it should be completely unparsed - it should be possible to retrieve the data for a specific attribute type with expiration information and with notification of changes. The kernel has to read RAs anyway, why shouldn't it store them in a way that userspace can access it on demand? A /proc file which is in resolv.conf format is definitely *wrong*, and while I'd argue for DNS being special enough to export its attributes is it really too much to have the kernel provide everything from the last valid message in a partially parsed format? Applications would then parse the data section for RA attributes they understand. -- Simon Arlott