[ntp:questions] ntpd IPv6 support on Windows?

Dave Hart davehart at gmail.com
Tue Jan 13 16:44:44 UTC 2009


On Jan 13, 4:42 am, ma... at ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
> Dave Hart wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 6:52 pm, ma... at ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
> >> And line 340-341 makes it clear that it's doing it's own lookups:
> >> // there was a new CNAME, look again.
> >> WspiapiSwap(pszName, pszAlias, pszScratch);
>
> >> That also means that it is not using the resolvers since CNAME restart
> >> is the job of a resolver and that means that this code cannot make use
> >> of DNSSEC and other security changes being added to DNS.
>
> > Take a step back and read the code some more.  On line 232 is the call
> > to gethostbyname(), the IPv4-only resolver entrypoint.  CNAME records
> > can be followed by that function, resulting in a return of both the
> > canonical text name via hostent.h_name as well as one or more IPv4
> > addresses in hostent.s_addr.  Only in the case that the resolver
> > returns a different h_name with zero addresses in the hostent will
> > this code loop around for another call to gethostbyname.
>
> > I'm not an expert on why gethostbyname would or would not include any
> > addresses when resolving through a CNAME.  I do know gethostbyname is
> > the old-style resolver, though.  I'm not sure that helps with DNSSEC
> > and other security changes being added to DNS, I've seen no hint of
> > support for such in Windows DNS clients or servers.
>
> But I am an expert in this area. This code has a layering violation and
> I won't agree to support that.

You have lost track.  This branch of the thread is a pissing contest
about your ability to read code before you make claims about wspiapi.h
not involving macros, for one, or about wspiapi.h not using the system
resolver, for another.  As I said previously, I appreciate the
education I've been given and I understand NTP has its own emulation
for the new resolver interface should it choose to use such a beast on
Windows, and I understand wspiapi.h in at least one release had a bug
involving intending to test but instead assigning, so am not
advocating its use by NTP.

Cheers,
Dave Hart




More information about the questions mailing list