3 ms·
I would argue that this is still an implementation issue w/Vista's networking stack. The RFC assumes that the DNS resolver (the client) has a public IP. This is
by jcausey 18y ago
I would argue that this is still an implementation issue w/Vista's networking stack. The RFC assumes that the DNS resolver (the client) has a public IP. This is usually not the case with most clients, and Microsoft (etc) knows this. It's just an edge case that is now brought to light.
The solution to this is pretty simple (at least in the case of IPv4): identify and use the public IP of a session instead of the private one. I know that public IP identification behind a NAT is problematic, and certainly not that robust (SOAP-based UPnP IG is pretty ooky), but if it doesn't work, fall back to round robin. Not too hard.
Of course, while the solution is not too hard, it's up to a handful of large enterprises to deal with (people who make operating systems). And the rest of us are the ones having to hack around the problem in the meantime, which kinda sucks.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]