On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:40:29PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > 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? I think jhell's idea is overkill, but I like mount root read only. Symlinks are not beautiful.
_______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"