On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:41:32PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:23:44AM -0700, James Brown wrote:
> > That is fantastic, Dominick!
> >
> > I'm testing now, but in preliminary testing, this patch appears to fix the
> > DNAME issue for me.
>
> OK.
> Acknowledge.
>
>
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:23:44AM -0700, James Brown wrote:
> That is fantastic, Dominick!
>
> I'm testing now, but in preliminary testing, this patch appears to fix the
> DNAME issue for me.
OK.
Acknowledge.
Thursday night (CEST, UTC+2) I'll retransmit the patch + "Tested-by"
That is fantastic, Dominick!
I'm testing now, but in preliminary testing, this patch appears to fix the
DNAME issue for me.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:03 PM Dominick C. Pastore <
dominickpast...@dcpx.org> wrote:
> This caught my eye because it's similar to a bug I noticed in 2.80. See
> (and
This caught my eye because it's similar to a bug I noticed in 2.80. See (and
ignore the first half of the message about CNAMEs; that was an unrelated issue):
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2019q4/013483.html
It sounds like that was essentially the same issue, but
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 04:53:14PM -0700, James Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:16 PM James Brown wrote:
>
> > Indeed, that's the commit that did it.
> >
> Just wanted to bump this thread since this is still kind of a show-stopper
> for anyone that uses DNAMEs heavily. Any thoughts on
Just wanted to bump this thread since this is still kind of a show-stopper
for anyone that uses DNAMEs heavily. Any thoughts on how to fix?
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:16 PM James Brown wrote:
> Indeed, that's the commit that did it.
>
> I'm not sure why that change has any effect for DNAMEs,
Indeed, that's the commit that did it.
I'm not sure why that change has any effect for DNAMEs, though (which are
not being generated internally to dnsmasq)...
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:07 PM Geert Stappers
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:23:17AM -0700, James Brown wrote:
> > I'm upgrading
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:23:17AM -0700, James Brown wrote:
> I'm upgrading some test nodes in my employer's cluster from 2.78 to 2.82
> and handling of DNAMEs in the new version seems different (and wrong).
>
> The setup:
>
> local.mycompany.net is a DNAME to local-.mycompany.net, with
>
I'm upgrading some test nodes in my employer's cluster from 2.78 to 2.82
and handling of DNAMEs in the new version seems different (and wrong).
The setup:
local.mycompany.net is a DNAME to local-.mycompany.net, with
authoritative resolvers in each datacenter serving a different DNAME record
