On 20/02/2021 00:30, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
The fallback servers are only used as last resort, if there's nothing else known. They are *fallback* as the name says. Most likely the DNS servers were acquire by your network management solution (NetworkManager or networkd) and set on the device. Maybe theym come from IPv6 RA?
OK. I have found that, using wireshark, there is a
Type: Router Solicitation (133)
followed by
Type: Router Advertisement (134)
which contains
ICMPv6 Option (Recursive DNS Server fe80::5054:ff:fe9a:e849)
Then, continuing my research I upgraded systemd to systemd-246.10-1.fc33. In that version there are no FallbackDNS servers defined by default.Yeah, i think that's a bad change. I am not sure where the benefit of having a non-working system is...
Scratching my head on that one as well.
Link 2 (enp1s0) Current Scopes: LLMNR/IPv4 LLMNR/IPv6 Protocols: -DefaultRoute +LLMNR -mDNS -DNSOverTLS DNSSEC=no/unsupported So, now my question, why wasn't the dnsmasq server found/configured as had been the case? An intentional change or unintentional change?I am not sure which software manages that interface, but it would be worth figuring that out, and then checking whether it propagated that DNS info to resolved.
Well, I determined that in both the systemd-246.6-3 and systemd-246.10-1 cases (the only changes made)
the same Router Solicitation and Router Advertisement occur.
So, the only conclusion that I can come to is that something changed between the two versions of
systemd which results in the Recursive DNS Server option being ignored.
Would you consider this a candidate for a bug report against systemd?
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
