hmm, change in the interface, do you have tested the SplitDNS?
在 2012-12-10一的 11:12 -0600，Alan M. Carroll写道： > Although we try to keep fixes separate, the fix for these two bugs ended up > being too intertwined to readily separate. > > The primary change of interest is to split the HostDB in to separate IPv4, > IPv6, and SRV sections. The SRV records were already split in an ad hoc way, > this change formalizes and generalizes that. I split the IPv4 and IPv6 > sections so that ATS can handle servers that have both address families. > Currently ATS simply uses which ever address family it gets first for a > specific server. This is fine for hosts that have only one family addresses > but I expect that during the transition many servers will have both and ATS > should handle that better than simply locking in a random family. This is > particularly important for transparent proxying because this will lock in a > specific address family (that used by the client) and prevent cross family > connections through ATS. > > As a sort of side effect the way server address resolution is handled is > completely different. As far as I could tell, the previous method (the > "prefer_ipv6" configuration option) was not actually used so I don't consider > it much of a loss. The new system is described in the TS-1307 write up and > can be configured globally and per HTTP proxy port. The one significant > change from that is that server side transparent ports are forced to use the > equivalent of "client;only" for server IP address resolution because no other > preference ordering can be implemented. > > Hopefully, unless you are doing something tricky with DNS / HostDB this > change should just work better. You may be able to improve HostDB performance > a little bit if you are dealing with servers that have only one address > family by using DNS negative caching - rather than timing out on an IPv4 DNS > attempt and then failing over to IPv6, the negative IPv4 result can be cached > and immediately skipped. > > I also hope that the code is actually simpler and easier to understand, I did > quite a bit of what I consider cleanup and did not use any templates. > > I have a design and tenative implementation for (some) parallelization of > IPv4 and IPv6 queries but it was a bridge too far for this commit. I plan to > work on that in the future. >
