Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ANAME loops #70

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jul 8, 2019
Merged

ANAME loops #70

merged 2 commits into from Jul 8, 2019

Conversation

fcelda
Copy link
Contributor

@fcelda fcelda commented Jul 1, 2019

Appendix with ANAME loops detection discussion to address #45.

I think the ANAME address record substitution will be the most complex part to implement from the whole draft. The loops are tricky and I find it particularly difficult to describe due to many edge cases and various options. Feel free to suggest edits.

cc @matje

resolve the ANAME target independently. There is no longer a single component
keeping the complete processing state and as a result the loop cannot be
detected and broken explicitly. Instead, the servers need to rely on secondary
symptoms indicating presence of the loop such as resolution timeouts.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
symptoms indicating presence of the loop such as resolution timeouts.
symptoms indicating presence of the loop such as resolution timeouts,
or tracking the ANAME resolution depth.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Matthijs, I think there is no way to track ANAME resolution path. How would that work?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Depth, not path. Everytime you encounter a new ANAME or CNAME you increment the depth. If that reaches a certain threshold the lookup is considered to be failed.

@matje matje mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2019
@matje matje merged commit 2ab4369 into each:master Jul 8, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants