> To be frank, when changing the default system resolver, expected > behavior should be the default. It's all well and good saying that > non-equivalent resolvers are 'bad' - and in the case of dnsmasq, that > might be true - but that's a value judgement that shouldn't have a place > in this scenario, since users haven't made the choice to enable dnsmasq, > and so shouldn't have to be aware of the caveats (ie - "My DNS worked > fine before upgrade").
It's a delicate trade-off, made all the more ironic by the fact that without dnsmasq, a second DNS server is practically useless (because you have to wait for the time-out on the first for each and every query). The easiest solution is just to delete the second nameserver. All I can say is that dnsmasq provides both modes, and the default is what it is for the reasons I outlined. If Ubuntu as a distro wants to flip the default, they can. My personal opinion is that it would be a mistake, but that's just my opinion. Question: does networkmanager's GUI expose the option to divert particular domains to a special nameserver? That's an alternative correct way to achieve layering local names over the global DNS. Cheers, Simon. -- 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: 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/network-manager/+bug/1003842/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
