3 ms·
My take is quite cynical on this.. This post reads to me like a post-justification of some strange newly introduced behaviour. Please order the answer in the o
by wolttam 9mo ago
My take is quite cynical on this.. This post reads to me like a post-justification of some strange newly introduced behaviour.
Please order the answer in the order the resolutions were performed to arrive at the final answer (regardless of cache timings). Anything else makes little sense, especially not in the name of some micro-optimization (which could likely be approached in other ways that don’t alter behaviour).
- Gigachad 9mo agoThe DNS specification should be updated to say CNAMES _must_ be ordered at the top rather than "possibly". Cloudflare was complying with the specification. Cisco was relying on unspecified behavior that happened to be common.
- hdgvhicv 9mo agoI’m no fan of the centralised intenet cloudflare heralds, but blaming anyone but Cisco for this reboot behaviour is wrong.
- alexey-salmin 9mo agoThe only reasonable interpretation of "possibly prefaced" is that the CNAMEs either come first or not at all (hence "possibly"). Nowhere the RFC suggests that they may come in the middle. Something is broken in Cloudflare since a couple of years. It takes a very specific engineering culture to run the internet and it's just not there anymore.
- Dylan16807 9mo agoExcept that "first or not at all" doesn't prevent this bug from triggering. Nowhere the RFC suggests multiple CNAMEs need to be in a specific order.
- skywhopper 9mo agoCloudflare broke clients all over the world. What the 40 year old RFC says is not the de facto “specification” at this point.
- alt227 9mo agoCloudflare broke 'Cisco' clients all over the world. Not CFs problem that the biggest router vendor in the world programmed their routers wrongly.