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 to dnsmasq
Because NM doesn't use dnsmasq to cache, if NM were to give dnsmasq only
one address then I guess the only service that dnsmasq would still
provide is that of name-to-server mapping.
And it turns out that the way NM currently uses dnsmasq to do this is
seriously flawed. So I conclude that it's better for NM not to use
dnsmasq at all until these problems are solved.
> [That NM only supplies one nameserver address per domain name]
> is a different problem, and could be solved.
>From the man page it's not completely clear how to solve it. Can you
confirm (1) that it's possible to give multiple server options as
follows
server=/google.com/1.2.3.4
server=/google.com/5.6.7.8
and that the result will be that 1.2.3.4 and 5.6.7.8 will be treated
equally for the purpose of resolving names in domain google.com? (2) And
likewise via D-Bus?
(3) What effect does strict-order have on this?
> Ironically, I think the
> problem arises because for nameservers associated with particular
> domains, the equivalent of --strict-order is always in play.
What you say here suggests that my proposition #1 above is false. If #1
is false then it seems that in order to fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to 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-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
