when using dnsmasq, you may encounter situations where it fails to
resolve private names in networks with non-equivalent nameservers. This
can happen when the nameservers configured for your network do not have
the necessary information to resolve the private names.
To troubleshoot this issue,
Need for dell laptop repairing contact dell service center in thane because we
have door step support for dell laptop users thane if you have problem with
your laptop like motherboard issue ,screen issue ,battery issue or ram
replacement we capable to resolve your issue at your place within
ake: Entering directory '/home/Christian/binutils-gdb/cygwin-obj/gdb'
CXXLD gdb.exe http://www.compilatori.com/computers/smartphones/
cp-support.o: in function `gdb_demangle(char const*, int)':
http://www.acpirateradio.co.uk/services/ios15/
The Precise Pangolin has reached end of life, so this bug will not be
fixed for that release
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Precise)
Status: Triaged => Won't Fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in
The Precise Pangolin has reached end of life, so this bug will not be
fixed for that release
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu Precise)
Status: Incomplete => Won't Fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu Precise)
Status: Invalid => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails to
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Released => Invalid
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu Precise)
Status: Fix Released => Invalid
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Released => Triaged
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Precise)
Status: Fix
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu Precise)
Status: Invalid => Fix Released
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid => Fix Released
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Precise)
Status: Triaged => Fix Released
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
Status:
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => New
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Precise)
Status: Triaged => New
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid => New
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu Precise)
Status: Invalid => New
** Changed in:
Adding the needed domain to the /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections
as an argument to :
dns-search= see
Works for me.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
** Description changed:
A number of reports already filed against network-manager seem to
reflect this problem, but to make things very clear I am opening a new
report. Where appropriate I will mark other reports as duplicates of
this one.
Consider a pre-Precise system with the
This breaks domain name resolution in Ubuntu 16.04, as seen in bug
#1522057.
tags: added: precise xenial
Changed in network-manager (Ubuntu):
importance: Medium → Critical
Changed in dnsmasq (Ubuntu Precise):
importance: Medium → Critical
Changed in dnsmasq (Ubuntu):
importance:
another solution is to resolve 192.168.0.1 code it as
server=/sample.com/192.168.0.1
which would send all dns lookups for sample.com to 192.168.0.1.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
The solution that can be proposed is that we can search in non
sequential order. if the first server fails then it should continue
until it gets matched to the other nameserver.
Like, if the request needs to resolve private address then ,it first
searches non sequentiall order and so it asks
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Sachin Bawoor (bawoor) => sunil (chikkalli)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes
The solution would be to search non-sequentially.
If the first nameserver fails to answer, then it should ask other till it gets
correct nameserver.
For example if the request needs to resolve private address-it first searches
non sequentially and asks 8.8.8.8 nameserver initially but it can
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre (cyphermox) => Sachin Bawoor (bawoor)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
Regarding #69: This does not work at all. In resolv.conf there is still
nameserver 127.0.1.1
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes
On Yakkety there is no file /etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/strict-order.
Should a touch do the trick? If so why so?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
On Xenial I've set strict-order in /etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/strict-
order. After a Restart of dnsmasq I have no failed DNS Queries to our
internal Domain.
For me this is fine, because the first (internal) Nameserver act as
forwarder. If this fails the second Nameserver can be used to resolv
Adding the needed domain to the /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections
as an argument to :
dns-search=mycorporatedomain.com
Works for me.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
This breaks domain name resolution in Ubuntu 16.04, as seen in bug
#1522057.
** Tags added: precise xenial
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Importance: Medium => Critical
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Precise)
Importance: Medium => Critical
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
Hope, my experience might help somebody affected with this issue. I've
just put the needed domain into the "Additional search domains" line of
the IPv4 settings of my VPN connection, and it did the trick.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which
Christian, the workaround is to comment out the line dns=dnsmasq in
/etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
I stumbled upon this Problem on 15.04. I cannot resolve company intranet
hosts via VPN as my WLANs local DNS server is always faster and only
knows about my local machines and internet.
From a users perspective I don't care about what might be the correct
setup of the DNS-Servers (I cannot
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress = New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve
The same problem persists in 14.04. My DHCP server pushes two DNS
servers: primary (10.0.0.3), located inside the local network and
secondary (10.0.2.1), located in DMZ.
Primary server's zone includes records for some servers that are
accessible only from local network.
Periodically (maybe after
Earlier there was some dispute about what the RFCs say about multiple
nameservers.
I found the following RFC which does have something to say about these
issues.
http://www.zoneedit.com/doc/rfc/rfc2182.txt
Here are a couple of passages...
Request for Comments: 2182
Category: Best Current
The target milestone should be adjusted, I guess.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private names in networks
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu Precise)
Milestone: ubuntu-12.04.2 = ubuntu-12.04.3
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes
Hi Simon.
Before I forget to ask: can you please update dnsmasq(8) to include
under --strict-order a description of what happens when nameserver
addresses are passed in via D-Bus instead of via a file?
You wrote,
you can very easily provide the same behaviour - only pass the first
nameserver
[...cont'd after in order to fix...] bug #1072899, dnsmasq will have
to be enhanced such that proposition #1 is true. But we can discuss the
details of that in bug #1072899.
parenthesis
There is a close analogy between the problem here (bug #1003842) and a problem
we have with avahi. Avahi
On 06/02/13 09:18, Thomas Hood wrote:
[...cont'd after in order to fix...] bug #1072899, dnsmasq will
have to be enhanced such that proposition #1 is true. But we can
discuss the details of that in bug #1072899.
parenthesis There is a close analogy between the problem here (bug
#1003842)
On 06/02/13 08:59, Thomas Hood wrote:
Hi Simon.
Before I forget to ask: can you please update dnsmasq(8) to include
under --strict-order a description of what happens when nameserver
addresses are passed in via D-Bus instead of via a file?
You wrote,
you can very easily provide the same
Simon wrote:
Consider
[...]
server=/google.com/3.3.3.3
server=/google.com/4.4.4.4
[...]
Queries sent to *google.com will be sent 3.3.3.3 or 4.4.4.4 in the
same way as if strict order was set, ie, to 3.3.3.3 first, and only to
4.4.4.4 if 3.3.3.3 returns a SERVFAIL or REFUSED error, or doesn't
Belay my previous comment about 1072899, it looks like network manager
is losing the second server before it ever gets to dnsmasq. Not a
dnsmasq problem.
Simon.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in
On 04/02/13 22:05, Thomas Hood wrote:
Simon in #49:
It doesn't work [...] the order of servers given to the DBus
interface isn't preserved internally
Aha, so the answer to my question
Will switching on strict-order have the same effect
now that nameserver addresses are sent over D-Bus?
On 03/02/13 07:48, Thomas Hood wrote:
there's still the unresolved question
of whether re-enabling --strict-order
will suffice as a workaround, since
12.10 relies on DBus to populate the
nameservers. Is there any extra
information on this?
Please try it and report back. :-)
(Put
On 04/02/2013 15:40, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 03/02/13 07:48, Thomas Hood wrote:
there's still the unresolved question
of whether re-enabling --strict-order
will suffice as a workaround, since
12.10 relies on DBus to populate the
nameservers. Is there any extra
information on this?
Please
On 04/02/13 15:36, Sergio Callegari wrote:
On 04/02/2013 15:40, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 03/02/13 07:48, Thomas Hood wrote:
there's still the unresolved question
of whether re-enabling --strict-order
will suffice as a workaround, since
12.10 relies on DBus to populate the
nameservers. Is
On 04/02/2013 17:07, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 04/02/13 15:36, Sergio Callegari wrote:
On 04/02/2013 15:40, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 03/02/13 07:48, Thomas Hood wrote:
there's still the unresolved question
of whether re-enabling --strict-order
will suffice as a workaround, since
12.10 relies on
Simon in #49:
It doesn't work [...] the order of servers given to the DBus
interface isn't preserved internally
Aha, so the answer to my question
Will switching on strict-order have the same effect
now that nameserver addresses are sent over D-Bus?
(in comment #42) is No. So switching
there's still the unresolved question
of whether re-enabling --strict-order
will suffice as a workaround, since
12.10 relies on DBus to populate the
nameservers. Is there any extra
information on this?
Please try it and report back. :-)
(Put strict-order in a file in
I started using my employer's OpenVPN today and encountered name
resolution problems. From my research, this here bug appears to be
plaguing me, as well (I'm on 12.10). Commenting the line dns=dnsmasq in
/etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf does fix the problem. However,
_all_ DNS is routed out
I am having similar problems. In order to get DNS to work I need to restart
dnsmasq after boot (manually or via script) in order to get it to resolve
hostnames. DHCP works fine though.
I am on 12.10
thx
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which
@tombert: Probably not the same issue, since the issue being discussed
here is not fixed by restarting. Please file a new bug report against
dnsmasq with a detailed description of your problem.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is
Stéphane?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private names in networks with non-
equivalent nameservers
I experienced the problems described where I lost DNS resolution when
connected to a corporate VPN.
With help from a coworker I fixed it temporarily by commenting
#dns=dnsmasq
in /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf as recommended in bug #903854
P.S.
I lost a lot of time trying to figure out
It has been a few months since the last comment.
If no solution along the lines of those outlined earlier (see comments
#28, #29, #34, #37) is forthcoming then nm-dnsmasq should simply be put
back into strict-order mode, thus reversing the change made at the
suggestion of bug #903854.
Stéphane
One thing needs to be checked, though. Reading dnsmasq(8):
-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
I also have this problem when I use nm-dnsmasq and connect to work over
VPN.
Although there is now a /etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d directory, adding
a file there with strict-order in it is not enough to fix the problem.
That option seems to have no effect when addresses are conveyed to
dnsmasq
@Stéphane: Can you please give us an idea of what, if anything, you
think will be done about this problem in Quantal?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu Precise)
Milestone: ubuntu-12.04.1 = ubuntu-12.04.2
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes
Just to mention that I have run into this problem myself when I connect
to work over VPN. I'm using standalone dnsmasq and not using nm-
dnsmasq. Turning on strict-order fixes it.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to
Untargeted the dnsmasq part of it from 12.04.1 as we realistically won't
get a change in dnsmasq by then.
Switching back to strict-order is a bad idea for the reasons listed in
bug 903854, namely, we'd loose our biggest advantage from using dnsmasq.
But there should be a middle ground here where
@Stéphane: The problem doesn't arise from servers not responding. It
arises from servers responding with NODATA or NXDOMAIN. See my comment
#28.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
Here's some background information I stumbled across.
Once upon a time NM started dnsmasq in strict-order mode but this was
changed.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-
manager/+bug/903854
This bug was mentioned in the discussion about domain name service
changes for Precise.
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #675319
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=675319
** Also affects: dnsmasq (Debian) via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=675319
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification because
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Debian)
Status: Unknown = New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private names in
As a quick fix, it might be possible to just include the DNS servers
reported by DHCP twice for dnsmasq: once by itself for global
resolution, and once with the search domain from DHCP so that local
network resolution might work. I'll investigate the idea, as that would
likely solve at least half
#991347 describes a case where there's a nameserver in the list that
always replies very quickly with no data. Dnsmasq currently selects
this nameserver because it's quick, the result being that all names fail
to be resolved. Ungood.
The measures proposed above would also improve handling of
I have marked this issue as affecting resolvconf
since we may want to implement a fix there along
the lines of #29 or similar. (In the absence of NM
and in the presence of dnsmasq, resolvconf also
feeds a nameserver list to dnsmasq.)
Just remembered that the resolvconf hook script that does
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Confirmed
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided = Medium
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided = Medium
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which
** Also affects: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Precise)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: network-manager (Ubuntu Precise)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu Precise)
Status: New = Confirmed
** Changed in: network-manager
65 matches
Mail list logo
