cifically notes it won’t do that.
>
> What’s the proper way of doing this?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
> Johannes.
>
> ___
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org
d
> man 1 systemd-nspawn
> man nss-resolve
> https://gist.github.com/zoilomora/f7d264cefbb589f3f1b1fc2cea2c844c
>
> The motivating usecase:
>
> client apps operating in a namespace, through a Wireguard VPN device
> with default routes and DNS via the far end should reso
my home network I have my own DNS domain and CA setup. It was
> easy to add the CA to
>
> Fedora's trust store.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Having this available as a core service within systemd using
> like APIs either in (mostly deprecated) CAPI or the new CNG
>
>
>
> Barry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Scott Fields
>
> IBM/Kyndryl
>
> SRE – BNSF
>
> 817-593-5038 (BNSF)
>
> scott.fie...@kyndryl.com <mailto:scott.fie...@kyndryl.com>
>
> scott.fie...@bnsf.com <mailto:scott.fie...@bnsf.com>
>
>
>
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
email: pemen...@redhat.com
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
/eed7fe96-9013-4dec-b14f-5abf85545385
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
email: pemen...@redhat.com
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
Hi!
I would like to know what is purpose of DNS proxy listener at 127.0.0.54
address. What were primary motivation for its creation?
Would it be possible having just (cached) DNS protocol on default stub
127.0.0.53? LLMNR could be handled by nss-resolve plugin, which provides
everything
r a
> purpose like this. But given that both servers (as well as nginx,
> btw.) seem to work well on the interface I'd actually expect resolved
> to pick them.
>
> So can anybody tell me what's the matter here, in particular whether
> this may be a problem of resolved or whether there's a
?
Is it already formulated somewhere as a vision, how it should work once
it is finished?
Cheers,
Petr
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
onnected?
Thanks for your help
--
Thomas HUMMEL
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat, https://www.redhat.com/
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
. I haven't found
issue matching your description. It would be worth filling.
https://support.f5.com/csp/bug-tracker
On 11/2/22 16:20, Thomas HUMMEL wrote:
On 10/31/22 12:19, Petr Menšík wrote:
Hello, thank you and Barry as well for your answers
I would suggest using strace to find what
.conf:
...
FallbackDNS=1.1.1.1 1.0.0.1
/etc/nsswitch.conf:
...
hosts: resolve [!UNAVAIL=return] files dns
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat, https://www.redhat.com/
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
- Any other issues with the patch? Or would it be reasonable to (add
comments and) submit a pull request?
I think pull requests are in general a better way to request a code
change. Makes commenting easier and linking related issues too.
-Vince Del Vecchio
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Petr
--
P
writing into it.
On 3/24/23 11:41, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fr, 24.03.23 03:16, Petr Menšík (pemen...@redhat.com) wrote:
Even if it could not use filesystem monitoring, I guess it could check those
files only once per second or so. Should not depend on number of done
queries.
It's not so easy
in advance.
Regards.
ps. anyway this 1.2.3.4%wt0#a.com configuration reminds me to the old
sendmail config files. which was so cryptic that no one can configure.
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
on_retry(..., false) is called to
retry the same server with a lower feature level (SERVFAIL etc) should
do the same?
- Any other issues with the patch? Or would it be reasonable to (add
comments and) submit a pull request?
-Vince Del Vecchio
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat, https://
systemd/systemd/releases> and it seems there
have been no changes in this area.
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat,http://www.redhat.com/
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
t know.
With this unit, systemd-analyze security named is now down to "1.9 OK",
I think it was > 9 with the standard unit.
Thanks for your help, I wanted to give something back. I'll probably
suggest this unit for the Debian package once it has reached some
stability.
Greetings
Marc
conservative.
Greetings
Marc
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat, https://www.redhat.com/
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
/aligning-on-mdns-ramping-down-netbios-name-resolution-and-llmnr/ba-p/3290816
2. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/28263
3. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/23622
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat, https://www.redhat.com/
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
adress) , all (default) , a list of ipv6 prefixes
(answering the adress on each prefix if avalaible) .
Thank you in advance for reading me.
Regards.
Jean-Marie Delapierre
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat, https://www.redhat.com/
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
, reported
(and ignored). I will try to minimize my reports to unemotional facts as
much as I will able to.
I think I deserve an apology from Luca, but I doubt I will receive some.
Thank you for reading it so far,
Happy new year everyone and less drama in it!
Best Regards,
Petr Menšík
1. https
:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 at 02:30, Petr Menšík wrote:
Here's what's really going on: you have found yourself in a position
where, as a RH employee, you could abuse the internal CVE process to
promote your own projects, and that's exactly what you did: without
consulting or notifying anybody who is involved
21 matches
Mail list logo
