Mark Kamichoff a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 05:16:13PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> I don't think this behaviour is allowed by the RFC. Then the problem >> is in the firewall and not the DNS, but the result is exactly the same >> for the user. > > Correct, I'm just moving the finger pointing to the firewall instead of > the DNS itself, since the latter may be behaving correctly. I work with > these types of firewalls on a regular basis, and might open up a case > with our vendor (Juniper), to see if they will fix the behavior. Cisco > and others might have the same problem, though, so it could be > widespread.
Upstream has promised to update the current behaviour (which has already been introduced to workaround this kind of problem) and to do the DNS requests using two distincts sockets. We don't know when it will be done though. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
