Re: [Bug 1003842] Re: Precise NM with "dns=dnsmasq" breaks systems with non-equivalent upstream nameservers
On 31/05/12 08:47, Thomas Hood wrote: > 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 list to be fed to dnsmasq contains one or > more local addresses followed by one or more non-local addresses then > run dnsmasq with the --strict-order option." > > I must confess that I am not sure what exactly should fall under "local > addresses" here. In IPv4 I presume that these would be the familiar > ranges 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16, but what about IPv6? I think you're right for IPv4. For IPv6, I'm tempted to treat it as a tabula rasa and explicitly not support NNNs. the rationale being that NNN support is to work around historical bad practice and such bad practice is not supported in the brave new world of IPv6. If that won't fly, then the IPv6 equivalent would be link-local (fe80::/64), site-local (fec0::/10) and ULAs (block fc00::/7), I think. > Nevertheless, I think we can safely proceed with this fix without being > sure that we have exactly the right definition of local address since > dnsmasq works no worse than libc in strict-order mode. > > ** Also affects: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) >Importance: Undecided >Status: New > > ** Also affects: resolvconf (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/1003842 Title: dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private names in networks with non- equivalent nameservers To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/1003842/+subscriptions -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 1003842] Re: Precise NM with "dns=dnsmasq" breaks systems with non-equivalent upstream nameservers
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 presence of dnsmasq, resolvconf also feeds a nameserver list to dnsmasq.) ** Summary changed: - Precise NM with "dns=dnsmasq" breaks systems with non-equivalent upstream nameservers + dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private names in networks with non-equivalent nameservers -- 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 notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/1003842/+subscriptions -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 1003842] Re: Precise NM with "dns=dnsmasq" breaks systems with non-equivalent upstream nameservers
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 list to be fed to dnsmasq contains one or more local addresses followed by one or more non-local addresses then run dnsmasq with the --strict-order option." I must confess that I am not sure what exactly should fall under "local addresses" here. In IPv4 I presume that these would be the familiar ranges 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16, but what about IPv6? Nevertheless, I think we can safely proceed with this fix without being sure that we have exactly the right definition of local address since dnsmasq works no worse than libc in strict-order mode. ** Also affects: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: resolvconf (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/1003842 Title: Precise NM with "dns=dnsmasq" breaks systems with non-equivalent upstream nameservers To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/1003842/+subscriptions -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
