On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 08:30:11PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote: > > > > > > On 03.09.21 17:13, Chris Green wrote: > > > > > > > I know there probably isn't a "right" way to do this but, while > > > > > > > I've > > > > > > > been trying to sort out how to make my dns/dhcp more resilient, I > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > looked at my existing dnsmasq running on a Pi and it looks a bit > > > > > > > odd > > > > > > > to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a pretty standard, off the shelf Raspberry Pi installation > > > > > > > using > > > > > > > the Lite version as it's headless. The dnsmasq.conf file has been > > > > > > > changed quite a lot over the years though and I wonder if it's > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > optimal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The upstream servers *seem* to be specified in /etc/dhcpcd.conf as > > > > > > > follows:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # Example static IP configuration: > > > > > > > interface eth0 > > > > > > > static ip_address=192.168.1.2/24 > > > > > > > #static ip6_address=fd51:42f8:caae:d92e::ff/64 > > > > > > > static routers=192.168.1.1 > > > > > > > static domain_name_servers=192.168.1.2 1.1.1.1 212.159.13.49 > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 04:33:10PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via > > > > > Dnsmasq-discuss wrote: > > > > > > this is dhcp client configuration, not dhcp server. > > > > > > > > > > > > iiuc it tells dhcp client not to use IP address, default route nor > > > > > > servers > > > > > > that DHCP server provided. > > > > > On 04.09.21 17:52, Chris Green wrote: > > > > > This *is* the DHCP server for my LAN so these are the upstream DNS > > > > > servers it gives to its clients. > > > > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 01:51:22PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via > > > Dnsmasq-discuss wrote: > > > > - why do you run a DHCP client on a DHCP server then? > > > > - Especially when you configured it statically and not to use DHCP > > > > settings? > > > > > > > > note that this is dnsmasq list, not dhcpcd. > > > On 9/5/2021 16:41, Chris Green wrote: > > > Because that's what you get if you install dnsmasq and very little > > > else on an 'out of the box' Raspberry Pi.
? > On 05.09.21 17:12, Treysis wrote: > > And there's nothing wrong with it. Many home routers incl. OpenWrt run > > dhcpd to get upstream information, and use dnsmasq to distribute > > everything to every device behind the router. > > those routers usually get their IP address, default route and DNS servers from > DHCP upstream servers. > > In this case, all those parameters were hardly overwritten (apparently by > instalator), which is strange, but the OS _MAY_ contain scripts that use > information from DHCP client to configure dnsmasq (e.g. dns server list) > > I can only guess now. > > since the dnsmasq.conf has been changed, it's hard to say if it's optimal. > > I use dnsmasq on my router, which takes dns servers dynamically, which I > believe is safer than using static list. > We all have our believes for better / safer / faster / cheaper. In https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1925 is stated (7) It is always something (7a) (corollary). Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all three). The trouble starts when people didn't pick the same two assume they did. Meaning subject question: What's the "right" way to specify upstream servers? is hard to answer. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Silence is hard to parse _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
