Subject: Re: DNS issue with c-aress.

Re: DNS issue with c-aress.

From: Peter Pentchev <roam_at_ringlet.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 01:05:48 +0200

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 01:52:46PM -0800, Greg Christopher wrote:
> Hi guys and thanks for the lively discussion.
>
> Daniel: You hit the nail on the head with:
>
> > I can see how a windows app that is used to the Windows way of doing things
> > may believe that libcurl would work the same way as they're used to have
> > getaddrinfo() work on their platform, even if I personally see that as an
> > obvious hack:
>
>
> Exactly. You have a windows application that was working fine, and all of a
> sudden when you run on a newer system, it either malfunctions in some cases or
> in worst case, has new attack surface. That's unfortunately what it comes down
> to.
>
> Usually Microsoft does pretty well with backwards compatibility. I guess they
> saw an opportunity to diverge a bit more with Vista/Win 7. If they wanted to
> continue with having localhost defined in the hosts file, I am not sure how
> they would have resolved the problem about having two localhosts in the hosts
> file when IPV4 and IPV6 were both installed on a system, but they probably could
> have fixed that.

The same way Unix-like systems have been doing it for the past
more-than-ten years - by having two hosts file lines for localhost, one
with 127.0.0.1 and one with ::1. It Just Works(tm) :)

I could try to work on a c-ares patch to special-case localhost on
Windows tomorrow, if nobody has actually done it by then :)

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev	roam_at_ringlet.net roam_at_FreeBSD.org peter_at_packetscale.com
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
This sentence claims to be an Epimenides paradox, but it is lying.

Received on 2011-02-17