jhell <jh...@dataix.net> wrote in <20110617022950.ga58...@dataix.net>:
jh> Gosh, Wouldnt it be something if we could store our dynamic resolver jh> information with the interface in the same sort of fashion that we store jh> our routing tables ? and then modify our routines in the library to look jh> them up via the "resolving tables" and think of resolv.conf as static jh> routing information only ? jh> jh> If we can already do this via resolvconf(8) in order to modify jh> resolv.conf how hard would it be to adjust to move in this direction ? jhell <jh...@dataix.net> wrote in <20110617023358.gb58...@dataix.net>: jh> I appologize for the insta-reply, but thinking more along the lines of jh> this it may come as even more of a benefit to tie this more into the jh> routing table so so each route can have a dynamic nameserver attached to jh> it so when setfib(8) is used a whole nother batch of nameserver could jh> also be used or fall back to the standard resolv.conf. I am not sure of the benefit to adopt "same sort of fashion as the routing table" for RDNSS entries. What is your problem, and how does your idea solve it? -- Hiroki
pgpjVYh7OhKuQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
