On 13/06/12 11:07, Thomas Hood wrote: > OK, so the ::1 idea fails as a quick hack. The alternatives seem to be > as follows. > > 1. Either we accept that nm-dnsmasq is incompatible with every standalone > nameserver and enforce this in a better way; > 2. or we force every standalone nameserver into bind-interfaces mode and move > nm-dnsmasq's listen address to something other than 127.0.0.1; > 3. or we make nm-dnsmasq listen on another port number (using the --port > option) and enhance glibc to support accessing nameservers at ports other > than 53. > > Have I forgotten any? > > #3 is the most attractive option but requires the most work and won't > happen soon. In the short term the choice is between #1 and #2. >
Further to #2 and getting dnsmasq support. I found a bug last night that means that dnsmasq --listen-address=<ip addr> where <ip addr> is not on an interface, will listen on port 69 of <ip addr> even if tftp is not enabled. The fix is in git but not a release, but should be backported if you do #2. It's trivial: one line. Simon. -- 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
