6 ms·
Don't even get me started on systemd/resolved. I know the RFC does not give any of the name servers listed priority, but that is how it has been used since ince
by matwood 6y ago
Don't even get me started on systemd/resolved. I know the RFC does not give any of the name servers listed priority, but that is how it has been used since inception. Here comes resolved, so now if your first name server ever fails to resolve, it will switch the second and not switch back (unless it also fails). This causes all sorts of issues with private DNS servers on lans, VPCs, and VPNs where you want a failover to a public DNS while resolving.
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/5755 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/5755
- JdeBP 6y agoIncorrect. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15230795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15230795
- vetinari 6y ago> so now if your first name server ever fails to resolve, it will switch the second and not switch back (unless it also fails) Exactly as it should. > This causes all sorts of issues with private DNS servers on lans, VPCs, and VPNs where you want a failover to a public DNS while resolving. This is broken; you should have per-interface defined DNS. For internal lans, vpns et cetera you can define which zones these DNS servers handle. For public resolvers (designated with handling the ~. zone), just having multiple entries provides the fallback you want.