On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 01:39:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
So by default, the algorithm dnsmasq uses for DNS lookups is
a) Different from that use by GLibC b) Wrong
Thus I think we should always use --strict-order when running dnsmasq. The attached patch adds this
The patch is fine, but I don't understand why you think the dnsmasq algorithm is any less right than the glibc/resolver one.
The list of nameservers is a prioritized lists, so by trying a random nameserver you may get different DNS results returned, compared to using them in sorted orders. Nameservers may also be ordered by locality, for example the first 2 nameservers are on my local LAN, but the 3rd nameserver is a 'failsafe' on the WAN. The first will give much faster loookup result that the last. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|