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 Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in 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-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs