On Fr, 09.04.21 15:20, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
>
> Silvio Knizek writes:
>
> > So in fact your network is not standard conform. You have to define
> > .local as search and routing domain in the configuration of sd-
> > resolved.
>
> Interesting... so what are you supposed to name
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 02:02 Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 22:28 Phillip Susi wrote:
>
>>
>> Silvio Knizek writes:
>>
>> > So in fact your network is not standard conform. You have to define
>> > .local as search and routing domain in the configuration of sd-
>> > resolved.
>>
>>
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 22:28 Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> Silvio Knizek writes:
>
> > So in fact your network is not standard conform. You have to define
> > .local as search and routing domain in the configuration of sd-
> > resolved.
>
> Interesting... so what are you supposed to name your local, priv
Silvio Knizek writes:
> So in fact your network is not standard conform. You have to define
> .local as search and routing domain in the configuration of sd-
> resolved.
Interesting... so what are you supposed to name your local, private
domains? I believe Microsoft used to ( or still do? ) re
Am Freitag, dem 09.04.2021 um 14:27 -0400 schrieb Phillip Susi:
> What special treatment does systemd-resolved give to .local domains?
> The corporate windows network uses a .local domain and even when I
point
> systemd-resolved at the domain controller, it fails the query without
> bothering to as
What special treatment does systemd-resolved give to .local domains?
The corporate windows network uses a .local domain and even when I point
systemd-resolved at the domain controller, it fails the query without
bothering to ask the dc saying:
resolve call failed: No appropriate name servers or ne
