Re: [reSIProcate] Using RRCache from DnsInterface
I was trying to pick up the latest DnsResult class and build it with the
rest of 1.0.2, but DnsResult needed updates in other classes, which needed
others, etc. If there is a new baseline I could just download a whole new
build/version and try that. Otherwise, if the "latest" version is stable I
can go with that.
Regards,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Byron Campen [mailto:bcampen@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:16 PM
To: Dave Mason
Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] Using RRCache from DnsInterface
Ah, yes. In that version of the Dns code, when all results for a
given lookup turned out to be blacklisted, the corresponding entries in the
cache were flushed. Backporting just the changes to next() won't work I'm
afraid, you have to take more in. Why didn't the most recent Dns code work
for you?
Best regards,
Byron Campen
> Hi,
>
> I made some headway today, looks like you just have to instantiate the
> RRCache and the DnsStub will use it. (right?) The trouble I have now
> is that the total time to do a lookup stays the same, and I don't see
> any difference in the STACK logs that print out. I wonder if this is
> because of the blacklisting you mentioned in DnsResult::next()? I'm
> still on 1.0.2.
> If so, could I backport the new DnsResult::next() into 1.0.2? I tried
> picking up the whole latest DnsResult once and it didn't work.
>
> Dave
>
> DEBUG | 20070118-161924.289 | dcmlaptop | SmSipMgr | RESIP:DNS |
> 28591 |
> 158850 | DnsResult.cxx:1201 | Blacklisting flammajobby.com(1):
> 10.4.5.249
> WARNING | 20070118-161924.290 | dcmlaptop | SmSipMgr | RESIP:DNS |
> 28591 |
> 182419 | dns/RRList.cxx:280 | DNSCACHE: Type=SRV:
> _sip._udp.flammajobby.com
> -> sip1.flammajobby.com:5060 priority=0 weight=1 **blacklisted for
> protocols=SIP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Byron Campen [mailto:bcampen@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:38 AM
> To: Dave Mason
> Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] What does DNS blacklisting mean?
>
> So, before I took a pickaxe to it, DnsResult::next() would result in
> blacklisting the result it had returned previously. I removed this
> behavior.
> Now you need to explicitly tell DnsResult that you wish to blacklist
> the last returned tuple. (through DnsResult::blacklistLast (), I
> think) Check out the latest revision. (A note: testDns is very
> different now. It may be hard to digest.)
>
> Best regards,
> Byron Campen
>