[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lwip-devel] [task #7017] Implement DNS client

From: Frédéric Bernon
Subject: [lwip-devel] [task #7017] Implement DNS client
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:40:56 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv: Gecko/20071025 Firefox/

Follow-up Comment #48, task #7017 (project lwip):

>I've found life is so much easier setting the pbuf size to (MSS + size of
all headers) that I sometimes forget not everyone can get away with that... so
as much as I hate adding additional memory requirements, the response buffer
is a good idea. I'd prefer to see a local buffer, and only if a chain is
received. What are our standard policies on local vars/stack allocation? 

"local buffer" need to increase stack size. It's not a problem for me, but
for others for smaller targets, I'm not sure? Else, we can do a local copy
only "if p->next!=NULL". Comments?

>One week for a default MAX_TTL? Do you have a reference for that? 

Yes, "RFC1035 - 7.3. Processing responses" ask a "one week" max TTL. 

>Also, the @todo for response processing is still in there, and comment #46
indicates that has already been addressed. Am I not clear on all that @todo
item implies or did it just get left in as an oversight?? 

Yes, sorry, it's not very clear: MAX_TTL is compliant with one of the
requirements of "7.3. Processing responses", but not all others requirements
are done. So, that why I said that TTL problem is done, but I let the @todo
for others requirements.

>Little things... should dns_setserver() have a return value? Also, the
comments are wrong for that function (cut/paste from dns_getserver() without

Sorry for the comment, I will fix it. Except that, the only possible error is
to give a too high value to "numdns". Since most of time, 2 DNS servers are
used (even in DHCP), this is not a real problem.

>Should we explicitly init secondary server(s) to 

No, since dns_servers table is static, all the table is set to zero. We have
decide to avoid explicit initializations in a previous task.


Reply to this item at:


  Message posté via/par Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]