On tis, 2014-04-29 at 11:24 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 17:15 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On tis, 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 08:49 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On tis, 2014-04-29 at 11:24 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 17:15 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On tis, 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS
On 30.4.2014 15:29, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 08:49 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On tis, 2014-04-29 at 11:24 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 17:15 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On tis, 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide
On 04/30/2014 01:17 AM, P J P wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 3:18 AM, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On my home LAN, I run my own DNSSEC-enabled server using F20 bind 9.
This local server also is my DHCP and Samba server. As usual, dynamic
clients receive the LAN local domain ID and DNS
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Robert Marcano wrote:
What about domain and search lines? If NetworkManager will always use
127.0.0.1, it should still modify resolv.conf with the domain name received
from DHCP
That's actually not always correct from a security point of view.
If you set your system do
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 13:22 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Robert Marcano wrote:
What about domain and search lines? If NetworkManager will always use
127.0.0.1, it should still modify resolv.conf with the domain name received
from DHCP
That's actually not always
Am 30.04.2014 20:38, schrieb Dan Williams:
There's really no guessing what's trusted/not-trusted unless you're
using 802.1x/WPA Enterprise, or if the user has told you explicitly to
trust this network
thank you!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Dan Williams wrote:
Untrusted networks use WPA too, like coffee shops that don't leave the
network open, but write the WPA key on the chalkboard menu or print it
on standup cards at the tables. I've seen quite a few of these.
You are at least consciously logging into
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 12:16 -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
On 04/30/2014 01:17 AM, P J P wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 3:18 AM, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On my home LAN, I run my own DNSSEC-enabled server using F20 bind 9.
This local server also is my DHCP and Samba server. As usual, dynamic
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Simo Sorce wrote:
Why would you care for the domain name as provided by dhcp ?
internal DNS views, eg server.internal.corp.com where the search domain
gets set to internal.corp.com and server.corp.com does not exist.
By default you wouldn't want that as you roam with a
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 15:36 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Simo Sorce wrote:
Why would you care for the domain name as provided by dhcp ?
internal DNS views, eg server.internal.corp.com where the search domain
gets set to internal.corp.com and server.corp.com does not
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 15:36 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Simo Sorce wrote:
Why would you care for the domain name as provided by dhcp ?
internal DNS views, eg server.internal.corp.com where the search
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:06:51PM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 15:36 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Simo Sorce wrote:
Why would you care for the domain name as provided by dhcp
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 16:12 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:06:51PM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 15:36 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 03:55:59PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 16:12 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
If I once connected to an open network called MyFavoriteCoffeeShop
then later on someone creates a network with the same name but with
malicous intent, will NetworkManager
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
Change owner(s): P J P p...@fedoraproject.org, Pavel Šimerda
pav...@pavlix.net, Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com
To install a local DNS resolver trusted for the
Hello,
2014-04-29 14:15 GMT+02:00 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
So what *exactly* happens on upgrade? Before the
Hello,
On Tuesday, 29 April 2014 7:22 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
So what exactly happens on upgrade? Before the upgrade,
most resolv.conf files will not point to 127.0.0.1.
What will they point to after the upgrade, and if they will point to 127.0.0.1,
which package will actually do that, and
To install a local DNS resolver trusted for the DNSSEC validation running
on 127.0.0.1:53. This must be the only name server entry in
/etc/resolv.conf.
Can the proposal owners clarify for me how this is intended to impact the
cloud products? There's general resistance to having more services
On Tuesday, 29 April 2014 7:56 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Can the proposal owners clarify for me how this is intended to impact the
cloud products?
Cloud products is somewhat of a hazy area(at-least for me). It's unclear how
things operate there. Any information about how we could/should
On tis, 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
Change owner(s): P J P p...@fedoraproject.org, Pavel Šimerda
pav...@pavlix.net, Tomas Hozza
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 05:15:57PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On tis, 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
Change owner(s): P J P
On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 17:15 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On tis, 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
Change owner(s): P J P
On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 22:10 +0800, P J P wrote:
Hello,
On Tuesday, 29 April 2014 7:22 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
So what exactly happens on upgrade? Before the upgrade,
most resolv.conf files will not point to 127.0.0.1.
What will they point to after the upgrade, and if they will point
[ Dropping devel-announce ]
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com
wrote:
Not sure how to fix something like that though...
I think in both cases (host and container) it would be best if the
local resolver offered a local-only API (e.g. unix domain sockets,
2014-04-29 17:15 GMT+02:00 Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com:
On tis, 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
To install a local DNS resolver trusted
On 29.4.2014 17:27, Colin Walters wrote:
[ Dropping devel-announce ]
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
Not sure how to fix something like that though...
I think in both cases (host and container) it would be best if the local
resolver offered a
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, P J P wrote:
Similarly, what do we tell users who used to edit /etc/resolv.conf to do in the
new system?
We tell users to never edit the '/etc/resolv.conf' file and ensure that the
local resolver is listening at 127.0.0.1:53.
We should leave a comment in resolv.conf
On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 17:39 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 29.4.2014 17:27, Colin Walters wrote:
[ Dropping devel-announce ]
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com
wrote:
Not sure how to fix something like that though...
I think in both cases (host and
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 05:15:57PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On tis, 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
Hi,
On Tuesday, 29 April 2014 8:59 PM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote:
If NetworkManager is being used, users already don't touch resolv.conf,
they edit /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* files and use
DNS1/DNS2/DNS3 and SEARCHES to set DNS information.
Yes, true!
If
On Tuesday, 29 April 2014 9:29 PM, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote:
Note that FreeBSD also picked unbound recently for the exact same task.
True! -
http://www.freebsdnews.net/2013/09/20/freebsd-10s-new-technologies-and-features/
---
Regards
-Prasad
http://feedmug.com
--
devel mailing
Hi,
On Tuesday, 29 April 2014 10:08 PM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
but the container itself runs in a network namespace, so it gets its own
loopback device. This will mean 127.0.0.1:53 points to the container itself,
not the host, so dns resolving in the container will not work.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:17 PM, P J P pj.pan...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday, 29 April 2014 10:08 PM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
but the container itself runs in a network namespace, so it gets its own
loopback device. This will mean 127.0.0.1:53 points to the container
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 09:29:00AM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
OTOH, it would be straightforward to write a tiny stub that forwards
127.0.0.1:53 to something outside the container.
Is this tiny stub a process running inside the container? What starts that
process? What about in the single
- Original Message -
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
Change owner(s): P J P p...@fedoraproject.org, Pavel Šimerda
pav...@pavlix.net, Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com
Ops, I was just pinged
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 09:29:00AM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
OTOH, it would be straightforward to write a tiny stub that forwards
127.0.0.1:53 to something outside the container.
Is this tiny stub a process
On Tuesday 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
Change owner(s): P J P p...@fedoraproject.org, Pavel Šimerda
pav...@pavlix.net, Tomas Hozza
On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 3:18 AM, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On my home LAN, I run my own DNSSEC-enabled server using F20 bind 9.
This local server also is my DHCP and Samba server. As usual, dynamic
clients receive the LAN local domain ID and DNS server ID
automatically.
How does
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
Change owner(s): P J P p...@fedoraproject.org, Pavel Šimerda
pav...@pavlix.net, Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com
To install a local DNS resolver trusted for the
40 matches
Mail list logo
