Re: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

Steve Langasek writes ("Re: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order"):
> [In all my comments below, I am assuming that we are focused on rule 9 as
> pertains to sorting of IPv4 addresses.  A strict sorting of IPv6 addresses
> by length of prefix match is also questionable, but not so much so that I
> believe overruling is justified.]

Thanks for that.  I agree - sometime strongly - with what you're
saying, except that I would go further on some points.  For example:

> One of the existing use cases that breaks is round-robin DNS.  Round-robin
> DNS is not an IETF standard; its use has been discouraged by various parties
> for years; it has limitations that make it unsuitable for any but the
> simplest of configurations.

I'm much more a fan of DNS round robin.  It's true that it isn't
entirely uncontroversial but what its opponents cannot deny is that it
is widely deployed and relied on.  Therefore it is a de facto
standard.

Ian.