Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-resolved as dnsmasq replacement
On Thu, 18.06.15 07:57, Daurnimator (q...@daurnimator.com) wrote: > On 18 Jun 2015 3:51 am, "Lennart Poettering" wrote: > > > > On Wed, 17.06.15 19:48, Igor Bukanov (i...@mir2.org) wrote: > > > > > On 17 June 2015 at 15:27, Lennart Poettering > wrote: > > > > To hook up local name service > > > > clients people should use the "nss-resolve" NSS module, which ensures > > > > that gethostbyname() and friends use resolved as backend. > > > > > > I suppose then non-glibc clients should deal with that on its own. I > > > thought converting LLMNR into DNS would be a reasonable hack, but then > > > if the translation requires too much insanity, then indeed it is > > > better not to do that. > > > > If people use libraries to do DNS manually, then they'll do *DNS* > > manually, and we shouldn't interfere with that really. > > > > Usually people pick non-libc DNS libraries because they need async > > behaviour. I am pretty sure that's a pretty bad reason though and if > > you want async behaviour you should use sd-resolve or so. > > I've also used them because I > - need other record types (e.g. SRV) res_query() can do that too, as part of libc. The bus API of resolved allows queriying that. But of course, we don't advertise that yet, and haven't even declared it stable. > - want to use DNSSEC It is our intention to add this to resolved soon. > - Want to choose between recursive and stub resolvers I am pretty sure recursive resolvers should be left to DNS servers. If all clients would start doing that, the whole caching scheme of DNS would be pointless... > FWIW, I use http://25thandclement.com/~william/projects/dns.c.html in many > projects. > It parses nsswitch.conf, but only cares about a few predetermined values. > Maybe it should gain some features in this area? I am not a fan of people doing things like that. In the long run I am pretty sure people should ask resolved. In the short run people should use libc's res_query() interface... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-resolved as dnsmasq replacement
On 18 Jun 2015 3:51 am, "Lennart Poettering" wrote: > > On Wed, 17.06.15 19:48, Igor Bukanov (i...@mir2.org) wrote: > > > On 17 June 2015 at 15:27, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > To hook up local name service > > > clients people should use the "nss-resolve" NSS module, which ensures > > > that gethostbyname() and friends use resolved as backend. > > > > I suppose then non-glibc clients should deal with that on its own. I > > thought converting LLMNR into DNS would be a reasonable hack, but then > > if the translation requires too much insanity, then indeed it is > > better not to do that. > > If people use libraries to do DNS manually, then they'll do *DNS* > manually, and we shouldn't interfere with that really. > > Usually people pick non-libc DNS libraries because they need async > behaviour. I am pretty sure that's a pretty bad reason though and if > you want async behaviour you should use sd-resolve or so. I've also used them because I - need other record types (e.g. SRV) - want to use DNSSEC - Want to choose between recursive and stub resolvers FWIW, I use http://25thandclement.com/~william/projects/dns.c.html in many projects. It parses nsswitch.conf, but only cares about a few predetermined values. Maybe it should gain some features in this area? ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-resolved as dnsmasq replacement
On Wed, 17.06.15 19:48, Igor Bukanov (i...@mir2.org) wrote: > On 17 June 2015 at 15:27, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > To hook up local name service > > clients people should use the "nss-resolve" NSS module, which ensures > > that gethostbyname() and friends use resolved as backend. > > I suppose then non-glibc clients should deal with that on its own. I > thought converting LLMNR into DNS would be a reasonable hack, but then > if the translation requires too much insanity, then indeed it is > better not to do that. If people use libraries to do DNS manually, then they'll do *DNS* manually, and we shouldn't interfere with that really. Usually people pick non-libc DNS libraries because they need async behaviour. I am pretty sure that's a pretty bad reason though and if you want async behaviour you should use sd-resolve or so. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-resolved as dnsmasq replacement
On 17 June 2015 at 15:27, Lennart Poettering wrote: > To hook up local name service > clients people should use the "nss-resolve" NSS module, which ensures > that gethostbyname() and friends use resolved as backend. I suppose then non-glibc clients should deal with that on its own. I thought converting LLMNR into DNS would be a reasonable hack, but then if the translation requires too much insanity, then indeed it is better not to do that. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-resolved as dnsmasq replacement
On Wed, 17.06.15 15:19, Igor Bukanov (i...@mir2.org) wrote: > Hello, > > perhaps I missed something, but it seems that systemd-resolved cannot > be configured to serve the same role as dnsmasq and be a DNS server > for local machine. I.e. I cannot just have nameserver 127.0.0.1 in > /ertc/resolv.conf and get LLMNR resolution working for progams that > only use nameservers from /etc/resolv.conf . The semantics of LLMNR are quite different from DNS. Translating DNS requests to LLMNR is not really a good idea. For example, DNS clients generally have no concept of address scopes, while they are pretty much essential for LLMNR, because that is usually used in conjuntion with ipv4ll and ipv6 link local addresses. Hence: we will not do translation like that. And we won't add that for mDNS (which I plan to add support for soon) either. > Is it really true and this is indeed an unimplemented feature? THis is not intended to be available. To hook up local name service clients people should use the "nss-resolve" NSS module, which ensures that gethostbyname() and friends use resolved as backend. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] systemd-resolved as dnsmasq replacement
Hello, perhaps I missed something, but it seems that systemd-resolved cannot be configured to serve the same role as dnsmasq and be a DNS server for local machine. I.e. I cannot just have nameserver 127.0.0.1 in /ertc/resolv.conf and get LLMNR resolution working for progams that only use nameservers from /etc/resolv.conf . Is it really true and this is indeed an unimplemented feature? ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
