Opened 7 years ago

Closed 7 years ago

Last modified 7 years ago

#2618 closed defect (wontfix)

Add IPv4 addresses of the root servers into default configuration

Reported by: jreed Owned by: jinmei
Priority: medium Milestone: Sprint-20130219
Component: resolver Version:
Keywords: Cc: atkac@…
CVSS Scoring: Parent Tickets:
Sensitive: no Defect Severity: Low
Sub-Project: DNS Feature Depending on Ticket:
Estimated Difficulty: 1 Add Hours to Ticket: 0
Total Hours: 1.01 Internal?: no

Description

Please see patch at https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind10-dev/2013-January/004210.html from Adam Tkac.

This adds all IPv4 addresses of the root servers.

Maybe IPv6 addresses should be added too.

And probably the hard-coded addresses should be removed and fix docs to explain about the no builtin, and that the hints are in the spec configuration.

I am marking this as a defect and not a task because apparently the l.root-servers.net address(es) was not good enough.

Subtickets

Change History (12)

comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by jreed

  • Cc atkac@… added

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by shane

  • Defect Severity changed from N/A to Low
  • Milestone changed from New Tasks to Next-Sprint-Proposed

Suggest adding to next sprint, since it is user-submitted!

comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by shane

  • Milestone changed from Previous-Sprint-Proposed to Next-Sprint-Proposed

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by jelte

  • Milestone changed from Next-Sprint-Proposed to Sprint-20130219
  • Priority changed from low to medium

comment:5 follow-up: Changed 7 years ago by jinmei

I've taken a closer look at it, but, unfortunately, I guess I have to
say we cannot benefit from the patch: As far as I can see the current
resolver implementation doesn't use the configured root server
addresses at all.

We could fix it, but that's certainly beyond the scope of this
"very easy" task. Besides, it's more likely we'll reimplement the
entire resolver from the scratch, so the fix will be a waste anyway.

So, while I feel guilty to say something like this for a contributed
patch, I suggest closing the ticket with "wontfix".

comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by jinmei

  • Owner set to UnAssigned
  • Status changed from new to reviewing

moving it to the review queue to confirm the proposal.

comment:7 Changed 7 years ago by vorner

  • Owner changed from UnAssigned to vorner

comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 5 ; follow-up: Changed 7 years ago by vorner

  • Owner changed from vorner to jinmei

Hello

Replying to jinmei:

I've taken a closer look at it, but, unfortunately, I guess I have to
say we cannot benefit from the patch: As far as I can see the current
resolver implementation doesn't use the configured root server
addresses at all.

I can confirm this. The addresses are carried through several levels of objects down to the RecursiveQuery?. The RecursiveQuery? stores it in a variable. But the variable is not used anywhere, so the addresses are just stored. So, should we discuss it or just close?

comment:9 Changed 7 years ago by vorner

  • Total Hours changed from 0 to 0.51

comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 7 years ago by jinmei

Replying to vorner:

I've taken a closer look at it, but, unfortunately, I guess I have to
say we cannot benefit from the patch: As far as I can see the current
resolver implementation doesn't use the configured root server
addresses at all.

I can confirm this. The addresses are carried through several levels of objects down to the RecursiveQuery?. The RecursiveQuery? stores it in a variable. But the variable is not used anywhere, so the addresses are just stored. So, should we discuss it or just close?

I've sent a followup message to the dev list, but haven't heard any
objection. So I'm going to close the ticket as "wontfix".

comment:11 Changed 7 years ago by jinmei

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from reviewing to closed

comment:12 Changed 7 years ago by jinmei

  • Total Hours changed from 0.51 to 1.01
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.