It just occurred to me that if we are going to change someone's listen
address then it might be better to give 127.0.0.1 to nm-dnsmasq and
127.0.1.1 to the standalone nameserver.
Consider the case where nm-dnsmasq is running on a machine, nemo, that
happens to run the nameserver for the LAN. /etc/hosts on nemo contains
either
127.0.0.1 localhost
127.0.1.1 nemo
or
127.0.0.1 localhost
10.1.2.3 nemo
where 10.1.2.3 is nemo's external IP address.
Other machines in the LAN access nemo via 10.1.2.3 for their general
name service. If they are Ubuntu machines they also access their local
nm-dnsmasq instances via the loopback address. It's nicely symmetrical
if processes on nemo itself also use the loopback address to access the
local nm-dnsmasq and use either the public address, 10.1.2.3 or its
substitute, 127.0.1.1, for general name service.
Perhaps this is only an aesthetic question.
Simon: Can we arrange by means of the file in /etc/dnsmasq.d/ that the
standalone dnsmasq listens on 127.0.1.1 rather than 127.0.0.1?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/959037
Title:
NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet
network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/djbdns/+bug/959037/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
