On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 11:05 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 15:05 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> >
> >>If you really really care it shouldn't be too difficult to implement
> >>nm-named-manager-dnsmasq.c and do conditional compilation. Not sure if
> >>Dan
Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 15:05 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
If you really really care it shouldn't be too difficult to implement
nm-named-manager-dnsmasq.c and do conditional compilation. Not sure if
Dan would take the patch, but it's probably not too much of a
maintenance burd
Colin Walters wrote:
But again, this would only help most (i.e. not all) of the time. The
network setup where David is is just broken.
Actually, it was was broken, but now its fixed! I'm now happily using
NM all the time (except I still have to change ntpd so it starts up
after NM).
I thi
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 15:05 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> If you really really care it shouldn't be too difficult to implement
> nm-named-manager-dnsmasq.c and do conditional compilation. Not sure if
> Dan would take the patch, but it's probably not too much of a
> maintenance burden.
Yeah, I'd t
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 20:52 +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Here is a good reason, then, to use dnsmasq rather than bind.
> When dnsmasq is run with the --strict-order option it always
> consults nameservers in the specified order.
But again, this would only help most (i.e. not all) of the time. Th
David MacMahon wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
So it appears to say in the RFC (2132) that the servers should be
contacted in order returned from the DHCP server. How do we tell bind
that's how we want it to work?
I don't know whether bind has an option to always query the forwarders
in the ord
Dan Williams wrote:
So it appears to say in the RFC (2132) that the servers should be
contacted in order returned from the DHCP server. How do we tell bind
that's how we want it to work?
I don't know whether bind has an option to always query the forwarders
in the order given.
A possible al
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 14:47 -0700, David MacMahon wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > But NetworkManager doesn't control which nameservers get used first, it
> > just dumps them to bind/caching-nameserver. So NetworkManager isn't
> > really doing wrong stuff here, its the behavior of bind that's caus
David MacMahon wrote:
Can you please expand on that? I suppose local caching is a slight
benefit, but is there anything else that makes using named preferable
to just putting...
nameserver ns1
nameserver ns2
nameserver ns3
...into /etc/resolv.conf?
Changes made to resolv.conf only affect
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 12:06 -0700, David MacMahon wrote:
[snip]
> nameserver 127.0.0.1
>
> If I change /etc/resolve.conf to...
>
> nameserver 10.12.0.1
> nameserver
> nameserver
>
> ...then "host 10.12.50.12" always succeeds. This leads me to believe
> that the forwarders listed in the named
Colin Walters wrote:
So regardless, I think this is a bug in the network setup at wherever
David is. He (and everyone else, regardless of whether or not they're
using NetworkManager, Windows, or whatever) will see this behavior
periodically if the internal server or the network is heavily loaded
Dan Williams wrote:
But NetworkManager doesn't control which nameservers get used first, it
just dumps them to bind/caching-nameserver. So NetworkManager isn't
really doing wrong stuff here, its the behavior of bind that's causing
the problem...
If NetworkManager is taking an order-is-signific
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 16:44 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> -
> 3.8. Domain Name Server Option
>
>The domain name server option specifies a list of Domain Name System
>(STD 13, RFC 1035 [8]) name servers available to the client. Servers
>SHOULD be listed in o
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 16:08 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 12:52 -0700, David MacMahon wrote:
> > Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Can you file a bug with exactly this information against 'bind' in Red
> > > Hat bugzilla? This sounds like a caching nameserver problem more than a
> >
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 12:52 -0700, David MacMahon wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > Can you file a bug with exactly this information against 'bind' in Red
> > Hat bugzilla? This sounds like a caching nameserver problem more than a
> > NetworkManager one. If you could add me to the CC-list of the b
Dan Williams wrote:
Can you file a bug with exactly this information against 'bind' in Red
Hat bugzilla? This sounds like a caching nameserver problem more than a
NetworkManager one. If you could add me to the CC-list of the bug that
would be great too.
I'm reluctant to file a bug without fir
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 12:06 -0700, David MacMahon wrote:
> I have Fedora Core 4 and NetworkManager installed. When I use
> NetworkManager I experience DNS problems that prevent me from using
> NetworkManager on a regular basis. Here are the details...
>
> I am on a private network (10.12.0.0)
I have Fedora Core 4 and NetworkManager installed. When I use
NetworkManager I experience DNS problems that prevent me from using
NetworkManager on a regular basis. Here are the details...
I am on a private network (10.12.0.0) with a DHCP server, a name server
(at 10.12.0.1) that maps names
18 matches
Mail list logo
