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 Ubuntu
Server Team, which
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
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 Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq
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 Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress = New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private
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 Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private names in networks with
** 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 Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails
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 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
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)
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
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?
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 Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
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 Ubuntu
Server Team,
@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 Ubuntu
Server Team, which is
Stéphane?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private names in networks with non-
equivalent nameservers
To manage
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 Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
** 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 Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails
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 Ubuntu
Server Team, 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 Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq 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 Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq 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 Ubuntu
Server Team, 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
43 matches
Mail list logo
