[Bug 993794] Re: Precise can't connect to a network guarded by an authentication webserver whose address can only be looked up with one of the nameservers whose address is provided by DHCP

2012-05-24 Thread Thomas Hood
** Summary changed: - Precise resolvconf+dnsmasq setup breaks login in some wireless networks + Precise can't connect to a network guarded by an authentication webserver whose address can only be looked up with one of the nameservers whose address is provided by DHCP -- You received this bug

[Bug 993794] Re: Precise can't connect to a network guarded by an authentication webserver whose address can only be looked up with one of the nameservers whose address is provided by DHCP

2012-05-25 Thread Thomas Hood
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1003842 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842 ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 1003842 Upgrading to Precise NM with dns=dnsmasq breaks systems with non-equivalent upstream nameservers -- You received this bug notification because

[Bug 1004949] Re: dnsmasq killed and restarted every 2 minutes

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
PArnal: The dnsmasq package is not installed but the dnsmasq-base package is installed. The latter contains the executable which is controlled by NM. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

[Bug 1004949] Re: dnsmasq killed and restarted every 2 minutes

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
Same as #1004775? -- 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/1004949 Title: dnsmasq killed and restarted every 2 minutes To manage notifications about this bug go to:

[Bug 1003842] Re: Precise NM with dns=dnsmasq breaks systems with non-equivalent upstream nameservers

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
In addition to devising an algorithm for dnsmasq to detect all and only NNNs, the implementation of which will no doubt take a while, we should consider implementing a quick fix too, along the lines suggested by Sergio in #19. NM could be changed to do the following. If the nameserver address

[Bug 1003842] Re: Precise NM with dns=dnsmasq breaks systems with non-equivalent upstream nameservers

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
I have marked this issue as affecting dnsmasq since we may want to implement a solution there along the lines of #28 or similar. 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

[Bug 1003842] Re: dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private names in networks with non-equivalent nameservers

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
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

[Bug 875950] Re: /var/run/dnsmasq/resolv.conf empty on boot

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: New = Fix Released -- 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/875950 Title: /var/run/dnsmasq/resolv.conf empty on boot To manage

[Bug 781557] Re: multiple search domains not honoured

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
Lieven Van Acker: Can you investigate this further to figure out why dnsmasq isn't being asked to look up 'host2.domain2.local'? ** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: New = Incomplete -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is

[Bug 991073] Re: dnsmasq failed to resolve most fqdn

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
Jim Tarvid: We are waiting for more information from you concerning Launchpad bug #991073 which you filed against the Ubuntu dnsmasq package. Please submit the information described in comment #1. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is

[Bug 526386] Re: dnsmasq with --interface exits immediately if the interface does not exist yet

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
** Summary changed: - dnsmasq exits using --interface if the interface does not exist yet + dnsmasq with --interface exits immediately if the interface does not exist yet -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in

[Bug 998712] Re: dnsmasq integration into name resolution broken

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
Wolf: Please post the FULL contents of your /etc/resolv.conf file as it is when the reported problem occurs. -- 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/998712 Title: dnsmasq

[Bug 998712] Re: dnsmasq integration into name resolution broken

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
Wolf: In #3 you post some output but I don't know how to interpret it. You start with a ping s4 which yields unknown host. You end with ping s4 which successfully pings. What happened in the meantime to change the results? Did you edit something? -- You received this bug notification because

[Bug 661599] Re: The dnsmasq package isn't available on the server ISO

2012-05-31 Thread Thomas Hood
** Summary changed: - lucid: dnsmasq isn't available on the server cd + The dnsmasq package isn't available on the server ISO -- 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/661599

[Bug 991073] Re: dnsmasq failed to resolve most fqdn

2012-06-01 Thread Thomas Hood
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete = Invalid -- 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/991073 Title: dnsmasq failed to resolve most fqdn To manage

[Bug 998712] Re: dnsmasq integration into name resolution broken

2012-06-01 Thread Thomas Hood
Wolf: You list problems with dnsmasq. In this report (#998712) let's continue to discuss the name resolution failure that you originally reported. One of the other problems you listed is being discussed in #1003842. For the remaining problems you listed, please submit your information to bug

[Bug 959037] Re: Standalone dnsmasq is not compatible out of the box with NM+dnsmasq

2012-06-01 Thread Thomas Hood
** Summary changed: - Don't start local resolver if a DNS server is installed + Standalone dnsmasq is not compatible out of the box with NM+dnsmasq -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

[Bug 231060] Re: packages dnsmasq and libvirt-bin conflict with each other

2012-06-01 Thread Thomas Hood
Emmet in #14 So, my plan is as follows: Should #959037 be taken into consideration here? -- 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/231060 Title: packages dnsmasq and

[Bug 231060] Re: packages dnsmasq and libvirt-bin conflict with each other

2012-06-01 Thread Thomas Hood
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: In Progress = Confirmed ** Changed in: libvirt (Ubuntu) Status: In Progress = Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

[Bug 998712] Re: dnsmasq integration into name resolution broken

2012-06-02 Thread Thomas Hood
Please understand that I don't have the time OK, marking this as invalid. ** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete = Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

[Bug 998712] Re: dnsmasq integration into name resolution broken

2012-06-02 Thread Thomas Hood
I'd just like to note here before leaving this issue that the submitter originally said that he was running bind. If bind was set up to listen on 127.0.0.1#53 but was not correctly set up to provide name service then I imagine that this could have interfered with the NM-controlled dnsmasq.

[Bug 781557] Re: multiple search domains not honoured

2012-06-02 Thread Thomas Hood
In the absence of interest on the submitter's part in pursuing the matter, and since there seems to be no problem in either resolvconf or dnsmasq, marking Invalid. ** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete = Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member

[Bug 1008126] Re: Install resolvconf listener for dnsmasq into /etc/resolvconf/update-libc.d, not update.d

2012-06-04 Thread Thomas Hood
Hi and thanks for the report. In the title, Install resolvconf listener for dnsmasq into /etc/resolvconf/update-libc.d, not update.d, you suggest a configuration change, but this is for several reasons not a good idea. What is this change supposed to achieve? What exactly is the problem you are

[Bug 998712] Re: dnsmasq integration into name resolution broken

2012-06-04 Thread Thomas Hood
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: Invalid = Incomplete -- 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/998712 Title: dnsmasq integration into name resolution broken To

[Bug 998712] Re: dnsmasq integration into name resolution broken

2012-06-04 Thread Thomas Hood
On the affected system when it is manifesting the problem you reported (can't resolve names), is named running locally? (In your original submission you said that bind was running.) What role does this named play in your network? How is it configured? What happens if you stop this named? And

[Bug 781557] Re: multiple search domains not honoured

2012-06-04 Thread Thomas Hood
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: Invalid = Incomplete -- 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/781557 Title: multiple search domains not honoured To manage

[Bug 998712] Re: dnsmasq integration into name resolution broken

2012-06-04 Thread Thomas Hood
The hypothesis was that named started before dnsmasq, preventing dnsmasq from binding port 53 on 127.0.0.1. But the hypothesis is false, since you are not running named after all. Returning to your dig output, it can be summarized as follows. dig s4 - FAILURE dig @10.1.0.4 s4 - FAILURE dig

[Bug 781557] Re: multiple search domains not honoured

2012-06-04 Thread Thomas Hood
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 998712 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/998712 Marking as duplicate since it's similar. ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 998712 domain name completion broken when dnsmasq is used -- You received this bug notification because you are a

[Bug 998712] Re: domain name completion broken when dnsmasq is used

2012-06-05 Thread Thomas Hood
Wolf: I forgot to mention earlier that the reason I have to keep asking questions is that I am unable to reproduce the problem here. On my system, domain name completion works as expected with NetworkManager+dnsmasq. I just tried installing nscd to see if that made any difference, but it did not

[Bug 1003842] Re: dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private names in networks with non-equivalent nameservers

2012-06-05 Thread Thomas Hood
#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

[Bug 959037] Re: Don't start local resolver if a DNS server is installed

2012-06-06 Thread Thomas Hood
@Alkis: Your title Dont... is not a description of a problem. -- 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/959037 Title: Don't start local resolver if a DNS server is installed

[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-06 Thread Thomas Hood
I just re-read the whole discussion and thought it would be useful (for me, at least) to summarize it. The original bug report was that NM+dnsmasq and standalone dnsmasq are incompatible because they have overlapping network socket address ranges, 0.0.0.0:53 and 127.0.0.1:53. One solution is for

[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-06 Thread Thomas Hood
Alkis: Why do you need the dnsmasq package at all? You want NM and dnsmasq. Why not just use the NM-enslaved dnsmasq? If the latter doesn't meet your needs, could it be adapted somehow to meet your needs? Assuming that there are good reasons for using NM and standalone dnsmasq, I'd be inclined

[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-06 Thread Thomas Hood
Hmm, I wasn't very clear. What I meant in my questions above (#34) was this. If NM+dnsmasq is the best solution for name service for the local host, isn't it also a better solution than NM-together-with-standalone- dnsmasq for remote hosts? If so then another solution approach is to enhance NM

[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-07 Thread Thomas Hood
What lies behind the problem being discussed here is the simple fact that there exists no single adequate network configuration utility for GNU/Linux. I am most familiar with Debian. From Debian we inherit ifupdown which was designed for static configuration. Debian developers have known for

[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-07 Thread Thomas Hood
* Some thinking about[0][1], if not much coding of[2], a successor to ifupdown was done in the netconf project[3] led by Debian Developer martin krafft[4][5]. [0]http://people.debian.org/~madduck/talks/netconf_fosdem_2007.02.25/slides.s5.html

[Bug 998712] Re: domain name completion broken when dnsmasq is used

2012-06-07 Thread Thomas Hood
Having just re-read the discussion, I realize that I may have misunderstood the problem. I'll try to summarize it. Wolf, are you saying that when using the NM-enslaved dnsmasq, fully qualified domain names can always be resolved using the resolver(3) but short domain names cannot be resolved

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running

2012-06-07 Thread Thomas Hood
Based on comment #28, marked as affecting djbdns. ** Summary changed: - Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running + NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running ** Also affects: djbdns (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug

[Bug 998712] Re: domain name completion broken when dnsmasq is used

2012-06-08 Thread Thomas Hood
Reggie: First of all, thanks for providing information about the malfunction on your system. We will get to the bottom of this! To get very clear on what's happening I will summarize. Let me know if any of the following is wrong. With the following resolv.conf (omitting comments)

[Bug 998712] Re: domain name completion broken when dnsmasq is used

2012-06-08 Thread Thomas Hood
Reggie, I wrote: First I'd like to rule out the possibility of side-effects of #1003842. Please eliminate the lines server=24.177.176.38 server=97.81.22.195 from /run/nm-dns-dnsmasq.conf Just thought of a hitch. After removing these lines dnsmasq has to be restarted or it won't notice

[Bug 1008126] Re: Install resolvconf listener for dnsmasq into /etc/resolvconf/update-libc.d, not update.d

2012-06-08 Thread Thomas Hood
Daniel, can you please provide some more information? Why do you think that dnsmasq's hook script should be moved? What is this supposed to achive? What exactly is the problem you are reporting? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-08 Thread Thomas Hood
** Summary changed: - NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running + NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team,

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-08 Thread Thomas Hood
But enough dreaming. Given the world as it is, the immediate challenge is to make NM+dnsmasq compatible with standalone nameservers. (Otherwise network-manager should Conflict with those nameservers' packages.) Solutions mentioned earlier: * Tell the administrator to comment out dns=dnsmasq in

[Bug 1008126] Re: Install resolvconf listener for dnsmasq into /etc/resolvconf/update-libc.d, not update.d

2012-06-08 Thread Thomas Hood
Daniel, if you base your suggestion that dnsmasq be triggered from update-libc.d/ and not from update.d/ on what you read in the manpage, then you have misunderstood. The hook scripts in update-libc.d are run only after /etc/resolv.conf has been updated. Dnsmasq's hook script needs to run when

[Bug 998712] Re: domain name completion broken when dnsmasq is used

2012-06-08 Thread Thomas Hood
Wolf, dnsmasq is not going to be taken out of the distribution. Probably you meant that NM-driven dnsmasq shouldn't be enabled by default. If so then please file another report against network-manager with the title Please don't enable dnsmasq by default so long as it's so buggy. But that

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-10 Thread Thomas Hood
I meantioned Wicd and Netconf above. While investigating another problem I stumbled across Connman http://connman.net which appears to be another alternative to NetworkManager worth watching. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is

[Bug 1011307] [NEW] dig(1) says that dig queries servers listed in resolv.conf, but this is not always the case

2012-06-10 Thread Thomas Hood
Public bug reported: Arises from #1010724. dig(1) says: If no server argument is provided, dig consults /etc/resolv.conf and queries the name servers listed there. However, if /etc/resolv.conf contains nameserver 127.0.0.1 and the command is dig -6 google.com then, as seen in wireshark,

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-10 Thread Thomas Hood
Another idea: * Change NM such that it causes its slave dnsmasq to listen on ::1 instead of 127.0.0.1 But I guess the problem will just arise again if the standalone dnsmasq is changed to listen on the wildcard IPv6 address. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-10 Thread Thomas Hood
Alkis wrote: I wouldn't want it as my default resolver. But some people might. It's better to eliminate the behavioral conflict, if we can, than to formalize that conflict as a packaging dependency. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is

[Bug 1011307] Re: dig(1) says that dig queries servers listed in resolv.conf, but this is not always the case

2012-06-11 Thread Thomas Hood
Yes, I also have no objection to the behavior. I think the man page could be tweaked to be a little. Something like the following. - If no server argument is provided, dig consults /etc/resolv.conf and queries the name servers listed there. + If no server argument is provided, dig consults

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-11 Thread Thomas Hood
Alkis wrote: If nm + resolvconf managed to properly chain the 2 dnsmasq instances so that the NM-spawned dnsmasq was contacted first I think that this configuration should be supported, whether or not it's the best solution to the present problem (#959037). Resolvconf can handle this with a

[Bug 998712] Re: domain name completion broken when dnsmasq is used

2012-06-11 Thread Thomas Hood
Thanks for the update, Reggie. Wolf, can you please put me in touch with one or more of the dozens of people you mentioned above (#21) who have this (#998712) problem? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-11 Thread Thomas Hood
Aha, I had tried this and it didn't work... in version 2.57. But I see that quantal already has 2.62. Another instance of dnsmasq will run without interfering with that, providing only that --bind-interfaces is set. Just to make sure I understand correctly: Do you mean here that --bind-

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-12 Thread Thomas Hood
so dropping a file there containing bind-interfaces and doing the relevant restart in postinst should make this automatic in most cases. I notice that libvirt has just used this mechanism to solve a comparable problem (see ##928524). Libvirt includes the file /etc/dnsmasq.d/libvirt-bin

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-12 Thread Thomas Hood
It just occurred to me that if we are going to change someone's listen address then it might be better to give 127.0.0.1 to nm-dnsmasq and 127.0.1.1 to the standalone nameserver. Consider the case where nm-dnsmasq is running on a machine, nemo, that happens to run the nameserver for the LAN.

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-12 Thread Thomas Hood
Alkis: Suppose your host, foo, has external IP address 10.1.2.3 and runs a standalone nameserver which listens on eth0. Configure things such that nm-dnsmasq on foo uses 10.1.2.3 as its upstream nameserver; configure the standalone nameserver on foo not to listen on lo. If it's dnsmasq, start it

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-12 Thread Thomas Hood
Aha, you have to use except-interface=lo together with bind- interfaces. Sorry for all the messages! -- 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/959037 Title: NM-controlled

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-12 Thread Thomas Hood
Hmm, just tested this myself. You can't use except-interface=lo; it seems you have to use listen-address=10.1.2.3. Perhaps Simon knows a better way. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

[Bug 231060] Re: packages dnsmasq and libvirt-bin conflict with each other

2012-06-12 Thread Thomas Hood
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed = Fix Released -- 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/231060 Title: packages dnsmasq and libvirt-bin conflict with

[Bug 231060] Re: packages dnsmasq and libvirt-bin conflict with each other

2012-06-12 Thread Thomas Hood
Oops, I changed the status to fix released but then realized that #231060 wasn't addressed by 0.9.12-0ubuntu3. The latter included bind-interfaces except-interface=virbr0 whereas to fix #231060 the following would be needed. bind-interfaces except-interface=vnet0 I don't have

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-12 Thread Thomas Hood
Alkis wrote in #51: Note that while bind-interfaces can be specified multiple times, defining except-interfaces more than once is a syntax error in my dnsmasq 2.59-4. Multiple except-interface options are accepted by dnsmasq 2.62-2. -- You received this bug notification because you are a

[Bug 1012102] [NEW] Check all configuration files for except-interface lo

2012-06-12 Thread Thomas Hood
Public bug reported: In the start_resolvconf() function the initscript correctly refrains from registering the loopback IP address with resolvconf if lo is in DNSMASQ_EXCEPT. start_resolvconf() { # If interface lo is explicitly disabled in /etc/default/dnsmasq # Then dnsmasq

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-12 Thread Thomas Hood
(Executive summary of the following: I think we should fix this by making nm-dnsmasq listen at ::1.) Thanks for your much-needed help, Simon. It is good to know that the except-interface avenue is available. We want, however, to be able to enjoy the advantages of non-bind-interfaces mode

[Bug 1012102] Re: Check all configuration files for except-interface lo

2012-06-12 Thread Thomas Hood
I filed this because I thought that even if we don't decide to deal with #959037 by means of except-interface=lo, this is a change that would be good to make anyway. But on second thought, this would just be one hack on top of another. Dnsmasq has several options governing which interfaces and

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-13 Thread Thomas Hood
OK, so the ::1 idea fails as a quick hack. The alternatives seem to be as follows. 1. Either we accept that nm-dnsmasq is incompatible with every standalone nameserver and enforce this in a better way; 2. or we force every standalone nameserver into bind-interfaces mode and move nm-dnsmasq's

[Bug 231060] Re: packages dnsmasq and libvirt-bin conflict with each other

2012-06-13 Thread Thomas Hood
@Serge: I was just going by what I read in comment #1 where vnet0 was named. You are right. Adding --bind-interfaces and --exclude-interface=virbr0 allows both the general dnsmasq and the libvirt-bin dnsmasq to start. Without --bind-interfaces and --exclude-interface=virbr0:

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages

2012-06-13 Thread Thomas Hood
Simon: If you can make #2 happen without breaking things, that would seem to be worth doing Indeed, primum non nocere. Standalone dnsmasq works fine in the absence of NM+dnsmasq and vice versa and this must continue to be the case when we are done. :) I guess the main problem is that you

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Thomas Hood
** Summary changed: - NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages + NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team,

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Thomas Hood
With the latest dnsmasq code the two dnsmasq instances appear to work correctly in all combinations. I just tested as follows. * With both dnsmasqs running, nm-dnsmasq forwards to the upstream nameservers and listens on 127.0.0.2; standalone dnsmasq forwards to 127.0.0.2 and listens on

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Thomas Hood
@Alkis: IIUC dnsmasq in bind-interfaces mode will not start to listen on any addresses assigned to interfaces after dnsmasq has started. So, yes, she would have to restart standalone dnsmasq if she wants it to listen on those newly assigned addresses. IIUC the only way to avoid this is to run

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Thomas Hood
Regarding #3, I've filed a wish in upstream's bugzilla: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14242 #2 is easy to implement and does solve the problem of standalone dnsmasq not starting on installation in the presence of NM+dnsmasq. What I am now wondering is how useful the resulting

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
Alkis: This relies on the assumption that NM's configuration text can be dropped in alongside whatever other configuration text is present and that dnsmasq will still work properly. This assumption is, er, questionable. And this is also one answer to my question in #72. The dnsmasq cascade may

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
--conf-file not needed Well, this is used to make nm-dnsmasq read the configuration file that has been dynamically generated by NM. Without this you will have to do something like the following. ln -s /var/run/nm-dns-dnsmasq.conf /etc/dnsmasq.d/nm-dns- dnsmasq.conf NM kills and starts a

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
$ cat /run/nm-dns-dnsmasq.conf server=/17.172.in-addr.arpa/172.17.1.2 server=192.168.1.254 server=... The first server= line reflects the fact that I am connected to a VPN. This can't be expressed in resolv.conf syntax. No doubt dnsmasq could be enhanced to poll its configuration files. But it

[Bug 1003842] Re: dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private names in networks with non-equivalent nameservers

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
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 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
Dnsmasq cascade (#72) has maintenance advantages. For example it makes it easy for the distromaestros to switch to other software to perform the same limited task as nm-dnsmasq now performs, without any chance of disturbing admins' standalone dnsmasq setups. Does dnsmasq-cascade have drawbacks

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
-- Solvable by moving nm-dnsmasq to another port: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14242 BTW, the required enhancement to glibc shouldn't be difficult to implement. I expect that all we'd have to do is change the following code (around line 313 in resolv/res_init.c) so that it

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
Applications that don't use the libc resolver? Hmm, yes. There are several alternative resolver libraries (adns, firedns, djbdns, ...) and even if we fixed them all so that they could read the extended resolv.conf syntax then statically linked third party binaries would still break. So having

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-16 Thread Thomas Hood
I now agree (see Mathieu's comment #30) that the most expedient thing to do is * update dnsmasq to a new release based on the latest code in Simon's git repo; * patch the two lines in the n-m code such that (1) nm-dnsmasq listens on 127.0.0.2 instead of 127.0.0.1 and (2) NM registers 127.0.0.2

[Bug 231060] Re: packages dnsmasq and libvirt-bin conflict with each other

2012-06-17 Thread Thomas Hood
From the SRU justification: Regression potential: There should be none, since we are simply telling the system-wide dnsmasq (if any) not to bind to the virbr0 which our own dnsmasq instance will bind to. There is more risk of trouble than that. With this change to libvirt- bin, after

[Bug 928524] Re: lxcbr0 fails to come up when dnsmasq is installed

2012-06-17 Thread Thomas Hood
From the SRU justification: Regression potential: There should be none, since we are simply telling the system-wide dnsmasq (if any) not to bind to the lxcbr0 which our own dnsmasq instance will bind to. There is more risk of trouble than that. With this change, after lxc is installed,

[Bug 928524] Re: lxcbr0 fails to come up when dnsmasq is installed

2012-06-18 Thread Thomas Hood
Hi Stéphane, Changing the default of dnsmasq to bind-interfaces wouldn't have been a very good solution because some people run dnsmasq without installing those other packages and rely upon the unbound mode. The implemented solution is better because the cases of dnsmasq being forced into bind-

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-18 Thread Thomas Hood
Relevant to my question above: What would be the best way to implement this, Simon? is what Simon wrote in #928524 comment #12: --- BEGIN QUOTATION --- I'm wondering about adding a _third_ mode, which is has a desirable mixture of the properties of the current two (--bind-interfaces and NOT

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-18 Thread Thomas Hood
@Simon: This is pretty much what I had in mind (comment #88) as a long- term solution. How difficult do you think that this would be? (Moving nm-dnsmasq listening to another port than 53 is at best a veeery long-term solution since it requires first getting glibc enhanced, then getting all other

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-20 Thread Thomas Hood
I can imagine that it will take a lot of care to avoid introducing races inside dnsmasq. Have I mentioned yet that Simon is a hero? Do we have to worry about races outside of dnsmasq? Suppose someone was running dnsmasq in unbound mode and has now switched to the new improved dnsmasq in

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-20 Thread Thomas Hood
Meanwhile my laptop has been working fine with two dnsmasq instances running in cascade. I'll try to subject this arrangement to more severe tests in the coming weeks. # netstat -nl46p | grep :53 tcp0 0 127.0.0.2:530.0.0.0:* LISTEN 7928/dnsmasq

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-20 Thread Thomas Hood
Just checked pdnsd. I thought it would be affected since it also starts in server_ip=any mode by default; however the Debian package which is also in Universe includes server_ip=127.0.0.1 in /etc/pdnsd.conf. It therefore starts alongside nm-dnsmasq modified to listen on 127.0.0.2. So nothing

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-20 Thread Thomas Hood
@Bert: Can you provide more information about the conflict with djbdns? The dnscache-run package, one of the binary packages built from djbdns source, is marked as Conflicting with resolvconf because it messes directly with /etc/resolv.conf --- see Debian bug report #582755. Its maintainers

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-20 Thread Thomas Hood
Next checked PowerDNS Recursor. The Debian package pdns-recursor is also available in Universe. Its default configuration is to listen only on 127.0.0.1:53 so it will also no longer conflict with nm-dnsmasq if the latter is moved to 127.0.0.2. /etc/powerdns/recursor.conf:

[Bug 991308] Re: DNS Querying fails if any DNS server is unreachable

2012-06-22 Thread Thomas Hood
Simon, do you think that dnsmasq could misbehave as described here? ** Also affects: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

[Bug 979067] Re: DNS unresponsive/slow when different DNS are provided by wifi and wired connected to different networks

2012-06-22 Thread Thomas Hood
Hmm, not exactly #1003842, since you don't have the problem that some nameservers are screening off others with NXDOMAIN. The worst we can say about dnsmasq in this context is that it could behave better in the case where several listed upstream nameservers are unreachable. ** Also affects:

[Bug 979067] Re: (1) NM fails to configure routing correctly when connect to two LANs; (2) dnsmasq initially slow when some upstream nameservers can't be reached

2012-06-22 Thread Thomas Hood
** Summary changed: - DNS unresponsive/slow when different DNS are provided by wifi and wired connected to different networks + (1) NM fails to configure routing correctly when connect to two LANs; (2) dnsmasq initially slow when some upstream nameservers can't be reached -- You received this

[Bug 991308] Re: DNS Querying fails if any DNS server is unreachable

2012-06-22 Thread Thomas Hood
Does the standalone dnsmasq behave the same way? To find out, disable nm-dnsmasq by commenting out the line dns=dnsmasq in /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.com. Restart network-manager. Then install the dnsmasq package. If standalone dnsmasq also misbehaves then turn on log-queries mode: add

[Bug 991308] Re: DNS Querying fails if any DNS server is unreachable

2012-06-22 Thread Thomas Hood
In bug #979067 there is a similar description of apparent dnsmasq misbehavior. There Guillaume Melquiond writes: It takes a lot of failures before all the unreachable servers have been exhausted, which makes for a poor user experience. -- You received this bug notification because you are a

[Bug 979067] Re: NM fails to configure routing correctly when connect to two LANs

2012-06-22 Thread Thomas Hood
The second part of this bug report, concerning dnsmasq's poor behavior when some upstream nameservers are unreachable, has also been reported in #991308. Let's continue discussing that problem over there and reserve this bug report (#979067) for the problem that routing is not configured

[Bug 997927] Re: NM reports VPN service 'openvpn' disappeared

2012-06-22 Thread Thomas Hood
** Package changed: network-manager (Ubuntu) = openvpn (Ubuntu) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to openvpn in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/997927 Title: NM reports VPN service 'openvpn' disappeared To manage

[Bug 994963] Re: DNS stops working after some time

2012-06-22 Thread Thomas Hood
** Also affects: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: 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/994963 Title: DNS stops working after some time To

[Bug 105251] Re: NetworkManager wrongly releases DHCP IP

2012-06-23 Thread Thomas Hood
Is this bug still present in Precise? -- 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/105251 Title: NetworkManager wrongly releases DHCP IP To manage notifications about this bug

[Bug 994963] Re: DNS stops working after some time

2012-06-25 Thread Thomas Hood
@Kemko: If you have no connectivity at all then your problem is another one than the one being discussed here, which is just that DNS stops working after a few hours, not all connectivity. ** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: New = Incomplete ** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)

[Bug 928524] Re: lxcbr0 fails to come up when dnsmasq is installed

2012-06-26 Thread Thomas Hood
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu Precise) Status: New = Invalid ** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu) Status: New = Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

<    1   2   3   4   >