On 15/06/12 08:04, Thomas Hood wrote: > Alkis: This relies on the assumption that NM's configuration text can be > dropped in alongside whatever other configuration text is present and > that dnsmasq will still work properly. This assumption is, er, > questionable.
There was an attempt, some time ago, to provide a way to allow something like libvirt to add its DHCP configuration to a system dnsmasq configuration without interfering with the existing config. It's basically a way to specify an interface and subnet for DHCP in a config line which overrides other access control, so for instance if the system dnsmasq config limits it to certain interfaces, then the interface specified by libvirt would be added to that set. To my knowledge this facility has never actually been used. > > And this is also one answer to my question in #72. The "dnsmasq > cascade" may waste resources but it has maintenance advantages. One > dnsmasq process is under the control of NM. The other is under the > control of the admin. They communicate with each other via a well > defined protocol, RFC 1035. This is a good argument, I think. Simon. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/959037 Title: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/djbdns/+bug/959037/+subscriptions -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
