On 2014-04-30, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Keith Keller
><kkeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> No settings might be better. If I take my laptop from one site to
>> another, keeping my previous resolv.conf intact, and NM doesn't remove
>> it, then my laptop will try to query the previous site's DNS. They may
>> not like that; depending on how paranoid they are, they may even take
>> measures to block my traffic. Even if not, I may see some really
>> bizarre DNS behavior which could be difficult to troubleshoot, whereas
>> having no DNS at all will be very obvious very quickly.
>
> So you only have one network interface active at a time?
That is of course not what I wrote. The above is just one example where
I might prefer an empty resolv.conf instead of an old (and possibly
incorrect) one.
> Our
> servers typically have at least 6 NICs and it is pretty common to have
> at least 4 active on different subnets. And bringing up a new
> interface does _not_ mean I always want to use the DNS servers or
> default route DHCP might offer.
So in this case you might prefer an old resolv.conf instead of a new
one or an empty one I don't recall anyone ever writing that any of
these scenarios is always preferable over the other.
At any rate, for CentOS 6 we can still say "if you don't like NM, don't
use it".
--keith
--
kkeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
