From owner-freebsd-net  Sat Dec  5 12:49:50 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA09373
          for freebsd-net-outgoing; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 12:49:50 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from poboxer.pobox.com (port95.prairietech.net [208.141.230.95] (may be forged))
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA09368
          for <net@freebsd.org>; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 12:49:47 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from alk@poboxer.pobox.com)
Received: (from alk@localhost)
	by poboxer.pobox.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA48053;
	Sat, 5 Dec 1998 14:48:34 -0600 (CST)
	(envelope-from alk)
From: Tony Kimball <alk@pobox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat,  5 Dec 1998 14:48:34 -0600 (CST)
X-Face: \h9Jg:Cuivl4S*UP-)gO.6O=T]]@ncM*tn4zG);)lk#4|lqEx=*talx?.<li^!8ecK]}3L-
	6`ZQW3}kxy*5]B<KA"&iBl58"/$W-0PP`B7c%'XczR)8T0VN47L`rQlu8qBIX4TJ|v'D%:k7GO%v4A
	Os>Gk,dMQU2)ptPC17cpBzm(l'M|H8BUF1&]dDCxZ.c~Wy6-j,^V1E(NtX$FpkkdnJixsJHE95JlhO
	5\M3jh'YiO7KPCn0~W`Ro44_TB@&JuuqRqgPL'0/{):7rU-%.*@/>q?1&Ed
Reply-To: alk@pobox.com
To: net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: resolver behaviour
X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs  Lucid
Message-ID: <13929.39477.406338.806610@avalon.east>
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


IMO, current resolver behaviour is not appropriate.

I would like the resolver to try all the nameservers at once, and
return any positive lookup response.  This is not the way it works
now.  If my wish is impractical for some unforseen reason, I would
like the resolver to keep trying the nameservers until it runs out of
fallback servers, or gets a positive lookup response.

Instead, to the best of my current understanding, the resolver
presently returns failure if it encounters a responding nameserver
which reports a negative lookup response.  This hardly seems
appropriate for systems with interfaces on distinct, unconnected
networks!

Alternatively, I may be ignorant of some feature of the software
which is excercised by current firewall practice.  I would appreciate
it if someone could grant me a clue, if this is the case.  If it is
not the case, I would like the readers to comment on what they deem
to be the proper change to make in the current behaviour, so that I
may make a generally useful modification to submit as a PR.



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message