[openbeosnetteam] Re: New stack

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe Houdoin" <philippe.houdoin@xxxxxxx>
To: <openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:42 PM
Subject: [openbeosnetteam] Re: New stack


> Vladimir reikine told us:
> > >> > I could really need some way to set up nameservers from the kernel.
> > >>
> > >> And editing /etc/resolv.conf is not an option?
> > >
> > >Editing a file from kernel-land? I would not like to do that.
> > It should be the same as regular DHCP client, IMHO.
>
> I'm not familiar with regular DHCP client way to do it.
> Someone care to give details?
>
> > >I did not think of a DNS protocol module. Instead, the protocol itself
> > >should do that. An IPv4 nameserver should be added to the IPv4 module.
> > >The DNS module could work, too.
> > >Are there any cases where moving the nameserver from its protocol to
the
> > DNS
> > >module is better? I think it is sufficient to add the entries as
attributes
> > >to the protocol.
> >
> > I don't think that it would be suffucient.
> > gethostbyname() should not depend on what protocol is used.
>
> Agreed, you got a point.
> So, we're back to name resolver in userland libnet.so, but how to
> dynamicly setup nameserver(s) from kernel land modules?
>
> > Moreover, it shouldn't depend on interface neither (PPP is going
> > to be bound to particular interface, right ?)
>
> But the nameserver(s) used to achieve a gethostbyname() call can/would be
> differents for each interface(s), no?
>
> > Aren't we going to be POSIX compliant one day, are we ?
> > DNS client daemon/module is the only solution I can see.
>
> You seems to have wider knowlegde on DNS support than me.
> Not that's so hard ;-)
> Anyway, being POSIX compliant implies we should have working get*by*()
calls,
> but not how they should works behind the scene...
>
> ISC BIND is best option, obvioulsy, but we need to fix our port currently
in
> libnet.so. Making multithread aware, at least.

Why obviously?
I know BIND (including it's client library) has a bad reputation, specially
considering security.

>
> -Philippe
>
>
>
>

Other related posts: