Re: dnsmasq

["Jim Popovitch" <yahoo jimpop com>]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 02:59, Howard Chu <hyc symas com> wrote:
> Hm. So what exactly did you mean by saying "the user needs some level of
> control over which connections are allowed to update resolv.conf" ?

Certainly not control of packet routing.  All I meant by that
statement, and it's hard for me to imagine you can see it any other
way, is that NM users need a level of control over which connections
touch resolv.conf.   If you recall, prior to that single statement you
quoted, I had suggested three options (global, connection, connection
type).   None of that implies anything close to the left field you
have drug this thread into.

> Yes, it's a good idea to have control over how nameserver info received from
> various interfaces gets used by the local machine. But trying to slot any of
> those controls into /etc/resolv.conf is futile.

<sigh>  You really don't understand the issue myself and others have
pressed for.

> I'm not insisting you use dnsmasq. I'm just trying to make sure you
> understand that inventing complex policies over what content makes it into
> /etc/resolv.conf is not useful. Policies for control of nameserver info can
> be better implemented elsewhere; dnsmasq is a working example of that.

You don't need to try and make sure that I understand anything.  I
didn't start commenting on this thread seeking input, rather I
commented on this thread to post input.  Input that clearly was
understood by at least one other person who agreed with my premise.

> Now, maybe we can work together to define what controls are needed, and then
> we can get some new code written for the purpose.

I somehow doubt that.   My earlier suggestions, seconded by Trey, have
escaped your understanding.

Best wishes,

-Jim P.