----- Original Message ----- > From: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email protected]> > To: "Asterisk Developers Mailing List" <[email protected]>
> So we have yet another internal resolver? Is that a good thing? Why > are we not using the system resolver? > > We need to have some direction here. I think adding yet another DNS > resolver is bad and will make it hard to add functions like > DNSsec/DANE support. Making it possible for one piece of asterisk to > use another DNS resolver is poor design, we should not open up for > that. The number of debug problems and runtime issues I see is > reaching infinity. "I can ping this server, but the sip channel > can't reach it" is just a start. > > Is there a way we can either avoid using yet another resolver, or > since this is propably better - switch all of Asterisk to use it and > we'll get asynch DNS everywhere? > > I can understand why a library like PJsip have support for this, in > some cases it's the only way when writing clients like soft phones. > That doesn't mean we have to expose it. We can still select and > decide for ourselves about our design. > > Summary > - Don't add yet another DNS resolver randomly > - Don't allow using different DNS servers in parts of a server app > and please don't allow anyone to configure anything else than the > system resolvers in a server application. I understand what Olle is getting at and I agree with it. Why do we want res_pjsip using something different from the rest of Asterisk? Everything should be using the same DNS resolver. Otherwise, we are opening up a can of worms here when it comes to supporting Asterisk and trying to troubleshoot DNS issues. This just doesn't seem like the right direction to go here. Michael -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
