[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] discussion needed: 0009 Support for IPv6 elements in idnsForwarders attribute

[Petr Spacek]

On 02/29/2012 04:30 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Either way looks ok to me.
> I agree that using a space may be less confusing if this syntax never
> allows to specify multiple addresses.
> If multiple address can be specified than it may be less ideal to use
> spaces.
>
> Simo.

idnsForwarders is multi-value attribute, so each value contain single 
forwarder address.

Petr^2 Spacek

> On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 15:14 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
>> And there is the patch, sorry.
>>
>> Petr^2
>>
>> On 02/29/2012 03:10 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> this patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/bind-dyndb-ldap/ticket/49 ,
>>> but I want to discuss one (unimplemented) change:
>>>
>>> I propose a change in (currently very strange) forwarders syntax.
>>>
>>> Current syntax:
>>> <IP>[.port]
>>>
>>> examples:
>>> 1.2.3.4 (without optional port)
>>> 1.2.3.4.5553 (optional port 5553)
>>> A::B (IPv6, without optional port)
>>> A::B.5553
>>> ::FFFF:1.2.3.4 (6to4, without optional port)
>>> ::FFFF:1.2.3.4.5553 (6to4, with optional port 5553)
>>>
>>> I find this syntax confusing, non-standard and not-typo-proof.
>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO better choice is to follow BIND forwarders syntax:
>>> <IP>  [port ip_port] (port is string delimited with spaces)
>>>
>>> (From: http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch7/queries.html#forwarders)
>>>
>>>
>>> *Current syntax is not documented*, so probably is not used anywhere.
>>> (And DNS server on non-standard port is probably useful only for testing
>>> purposes, but it's another story.)
>>>
>>>
>>> What is you opinion?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Freeipa-devel mailing list
>> Freeipa-devel at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel