View Single Post

  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2004
Peter T. Breuer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: some dnsmasq problems

buck <buck@private.mil> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:42:20 +0100, ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T.
> Breuer) wrote:
>
> >buck <buck@private.mil> wrote:
> >> On 29 Nov 2004 23:55:39 +0100, Matteo Corti <corti@inf.ethz.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 2004-11-29, Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@iki.fi.NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> Matteo Corti wrote:
> >> Content snipped.
> >>
> >> The computer on which dnsmasq runs should have a resolv.conf
> >> containing "nameserver 127.0.0.1" (and NOTHING ELSE) - assuming you
> >> want it to cache for itself as well as other computers on your LAN.

> >
> >Eh? How would it know who to use as dns forwarder if that were the case?
> >No - it can have all it likes, PLUS 127.0.0.1. Dnsmasq reads
> >resolv.conf to figure out the forwarders.

>
> Peter,
>
> Read what I said, which was
> server=ns.ip.goes.here


You did not say it, and I quoted what you said (whoever "you" are,
"buck").

> Which is where the forwarders come from.


I have no idea exactly what you are talking about there, but it looks
like a line from some configuration file or tool. What has that got to
do with dnsmasq? How about speaking in complete sentences? Might it be
a line from dnsmasq.conf? If so, why put it there? The right place for
it is as an entry in resolv.conf, where dnsmasq will pick it up, cache
for it, and forward to it, as it is designed to do, and where dhcp will
add the entry if it is allowed to! May I draw your attention to another
line in the dnsmasq.conf file:

# If you don't want dnsmasq to poll /etc/resolv.conf or other resolv
# files for changes and re-read them then uncomment this.
#no-pol

Or indeed:

# If you don't want dnsmasq to read /etc/resolv.conf or any other
# file, getting its servers for this file instead (see below), then
# uncomment this
#no-resolv

So what on earth makes you go for that piffling line of yours rather
than the above? And what good excuse can you offer for wishing to
subvert the way dnsmasq works? It works just fine the way it is
intended to!

Peter
Reply With Quote