Re: DNS problem (forwarding order?)

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 16:08 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 12:52 -0700, David MacMahon wrote:
> > Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Can you file a bug with exactly this information against 'bind' in Red
> > > Hat bugzilla?  This sounds like a caching nameserver problem more than a
> > > NetworkManager one.  If you could add me to the CC-list of the bug that
> > > would be great too.
> > 
> > I'm reluctant to file a bug without first verifying that the forwarders 
> > are in fact supposed to be called in order.  I've looked through the 
> > copy of the BIND 9 Administrator's Reference Manual included with FC4, 
> > but I couldn't find any explicit statement about whether forwarders MUST 
> > be tried in the order given or MAY be tried in some arbitrary/random order.
> > 
> > Do you know where this would be spelled out?
> 
> Most likely in the BIND code.  My guess though given the behavior is it
> does round-robin.
> 
> I think the key here is not what BIND does, but what the DHCP
> specification says.  If it says that clients must resolve names using
> the nameservers given in order, than what NetworkManager is doing is
> broken.  If however it does not specify (this is my guess), then

But NetworkManager doesn't control which nameservers get used first, it
just dumps them to bind/caching-nameserver.  So NetworkManager isn't
really doing wrong stuff here, its the behavior of bind that's causing
the problem...  It just so happens that we have a much more intelligent
resolver now than with glibc.

-----------------------------
3.8. Domain Name Server Option

   The domain name server option specifies a list of Domain Name System
   (STD 13, RFC 1035 [8]) name servers available to the client.  Servers
   SHOULD be listed in order of preference.
-----------------------------

So it appears to say in the RFC (2132) that the servers should be
contacted in order returned from the DHCP server.  How do we tell bind
that's how we want it to work?

Dan