On 05/09/16 13:49, Hans Dedecker wrote:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich <j...@mein.io> wrote:
Hi Hans,
imho it would also make sense to take any existing metric setting into
account as well. At least I'd expect that if I have a wan1 with metric
10 and a wan2 with metric 20 that the DNS server entries "inherit" the
same weight/order.
So priority wise I'd first order by dns metric, then by interface
metric, then by name - does that make sense to you?
OK I see your point; if the dns metric is equal for the name servers
the interface metric
is used as extra sorting criteria.
I would definitely like to define a dns metric parameter as you don't
need to define an
interface metric if you make use of seperate routing tables.
On existing configs using interface metrics this could to a change in
behavior as the DNS
server order can be changed when upgrading; this is acceptable ?
Hans
The dnsmasq manpage has this to say about resolution order:
*-o, --strict-order*
By default, dnsmasq will send queries to any of the upstream servers
it knows about and tries to favour servers that are known to be up.
Setting this flag forces dnsmasq to try each query with each server
strictly in the order they appear in /etc/resolv.conf
*--all-servers*
By default, when dnsmasq has more than one upstream server
available, it will send queries to just one server. Setting this
flag forces dnsmasq to send all queries to all available servers.
The reply from the server which answers first will be returned to
the original requester.
So unless you use '--strict-order' the order in resolv.conf.auto isn't
going to make any/much difference.
Kevin
Regards,
Jo
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
