dnsmasq dns nameserver priority parameters - strict-order
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
I have a setup specifying two DNS namservers. One in local, the other is external. The local one is a pihole, which itself forwards requests externally after url filtering. The external one is set in case the pihole device software or hardware fails.
The pihole response time is about 20 ms, the external response time is about 2 ms. Although the pihole is listed as a nameserver before the external, dnsmasq will by default test timing responses and use whichever is faster.
dnsmasq does however offer a parameter strict-order which should use the nameservers in the strict order they are listed, and so in this case should only use the external nameserver if the pihole "fails".
In practice using the parameter strict-order doesn't work as hoped, and the external nameserver still wins. The dnsmasq manual page doesn't go into detail about the definition of "failed".
I am looking for other parameter setting which might solve this problem.
As a last resort I would use an external program to detect pihole working order, and manipulate the dnsmasq nameserver settings accordingly. But that is not a preferred solution.
dns raspberry-pi dnsmasq
asked Feb 15 at 15:33
Craig HicksCraig Hicks
25419
|
show 4 more comments
I have a setup specifying two DNS namservers. One in local, the other is external. The local one is a pihole, which itself forwards requests externally after url filtering. The external one is set in case the pihole device software or hardware fails.
The pihole response time is about 20 ms, the external response time is about 2 ms. Although the pihole is listed as a nameserver before the external, dnsmasq will by default test timing responses and use whichever is faster.
dnsmasq does however offer a parameter strict-order which should use the nameservers in the strict order they are listed, and so in this case should only use the external nameserver if the pihole "fails".
In practice using the parameter strict-order doesn't work as hoped, and the external nameserver still wins. The dnsmasq manual page doesn't go into detail about the definition of "failed".
I am looking for other parameter setting which might solve this problem.
As a last resort I would use an external program to detect pihole working order, and manipulate the dnsmasq nameserver settings accordingly. But that is not a preferred solution.
dns raspberry-pi dnsmasq
asked Feb 15 at 15:33
Craig HicksCraig Hicks
25419
Alternate DNS servers with different views of the world where never a kosher solution, and if I am not wrong, the situation is the same with dnsmask. You should use the pihole for solving all the DNS requests.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 16:28
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely).
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:31
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely). *** A backup is necessary for others who need immediate continued internet access in case of pihole software or hardware failure *** If you consider the problem closely, it is actually asking to divide the duty of the two servers cleanly, exactly so that "dueling servers" does not happen.
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:37
And that is what I am saying all along. You are having problems because that is a bad idea from the implementation point of view. What you are asking from the implementation point of view is not advisable to do.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 21:00
@RuiFRibeiro - The Pihole needs to be used, but if the Pihole fails the system must continue to work seamlessly. There are other people needing to use that system who can't immediately fix it if it is broken if I am not there. Start from the requirements and figure out the implementation to achieve that. Don't you agree?
– Craig Hicks
Feb 16 at 7:06
|
show 4 more comments
I have a setup specifying two DNS namservers. One in local, the other is external. The local one is a pihole, which itself forwards requests externally after url filtering. The external one is set in case the pihole device software or hardware fails.
The pihole response time is about 20 ms, the external response time is about 2 ms. Although the pihole is listed as a nameserver before the external, dnsmasq will by default test timing responses and use whichever is faster.
dnsmasq does however offer a parameter strict-order which should use the nameservers in the strict order they are listed, and so in this case should only use the external nameserver if the pihole "fails".
In practice using the parameter strict-order doesn't work as hoped, and the external nameserver still wins. The dnsmasq manual page doesn't go into detail about the definition of "failed".
I am looking for other parameter setting which might solve this problem.
As a last resort I would use an external program to detect pihole working order, and manipulate the dnsmasq nameserver settings accordingly. But that is not a preferred solution.
dns raspberry-pi dnsmasq
asked Feb 15 at 15:33
Craig HicksCraig Hicks
25419
I have a setup specifying two DNS namservers. One in local, the other is external. The local one is a pihole, which itself forwards requests externally after url filtering. The external one is set in case the pihole device software or hardware fails.
The pihole response time is about 20 ms, the external response time is about 2 ms. Although the pihole is listed as a nameserver before the external, dnsmasq will by default test timing responses and use whichever is faster.
dnsmasq does however offer a parameter strict-order which should use the nameservers in the strict order they are listed, and so in this case should only use the external nameserver if the pihole "fails".
In practice using the parameter strict-order doesn't work as hoped, and the external nameserver still wins. The dnsmasq manual page doesn't go into detail about the definition of "failed".
I am looking for other parameter setting which might solve this problem.
As a last resort I would use an external program to detect pihole working order, and manipulate the dnsmasq nameserver settings accordingly. But that is not a preferred solution.
dns raspberry-pi dnsmasq
dns raspberry-pi dnsmasq
asked Feb 15 at 15:33
Craig HicksCraig Hicks
25419
asked Feb 15 at 15:33
Craig HicksCraig Hicks
25419
asked Feb 15 at 15:33
Craig HicksCraig Hicks
25419
asked Feb 15 at 15:33
Craig HicksCraig Hicks
25419
asked Feb 15 at 15:33
Craig HicksCraig Hicks
25419
25419
Alternate DNS servers with different views of the world where never a kosher solution, and if I am not wrong, the situation is the same with dnsmask. You should use the pihole for solving all the DNS requests.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 16:28
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely).
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:31
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely). *** A backup is necessary for others who need immediate continued internet access in case of pihole software or hardware failure *** If you consider the problem closely, it is actually asking to divide the duty of the two servers cleanly, exactly so that "dueling servers" does not happen.
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:37
And that is what I am saying all along. You are having problems because that is a bad idea from the implementation point of view. What you are asking from the implementation point of view is not advisable to do.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 21:00
@RuiFRibeiro - The Pihole needs to be used, but if the Pihole fails the system must continue to work seamlessly. There are other people needing to use that system who can't immediately fix it if it is broken if I am not there. Start from the requirements and figure out the implementation to achieve that. Don't you agree?
– Craig Hicks
Feb 16 at 7:06
|
show 4 more comments
Alternate DNS servers with different views of the world where never a kosher solution, and if I am not wrong, the situation is the same with dnsmask. You should use the pihole for solving all the DNS requests.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 16:28
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely).
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:31
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely). *** A backup is necessary for others who need immediate continued internet access in case of pihole software or hardware failure *** If you consider the problem closely, it is actually asking to divide the duty of the two servers cleanly, exactly so that "dueling servers" does not happen.
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:37
And that is what I am saying all along. You are having problems because that is a bad idea from the implementation point of view. What you are asking from the implementation point of view is not advisable to do.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 21:00
@RuiFRibeiro - The Pihole needs to be used, but if the Pihole fails the system must continue to work seamlessly. There are other people needing to use that system who can't immediately fix it if it is broken if I am not there. Start from the requirements and figure out the implementation to achieve that. Don't you agree?
– Craig Hicks
Feb 16 at 7:06
Alternate DNS servers with different views of the world where never a kosher solution, and if I am not wrong, the situation is the same with dnsmask. You should use the pihole for solving all the DNS requests.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 16:28
Alternate DNS servers with different views of the world where never a kosher solution, and if I am not wrong, the situation is the same with dnsmask. You should use the pihole for solving all the DNS requests.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 16:28
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely).
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:31
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely).
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:31
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely). *** A backup is necessary for others who need immediate continued internet access in case of pihole software or hardware failure *** If you consider the problem closely, it is actually asking to divide the duty of the two servers cleanly, exactly so that "dueling servers" does not happen.
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:37
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely). *** A backup is necessary for others who need immediate continued internet access in case of pihole software or hardware failure *** If you consider the problem closely, it is actually asking to divide the duty of the two servers cleanly, exactly so that "dueling servers" does not happen.
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:37
And that is what I am saying all along. You are having problems because that is a bad idea from the implementation point of view. What you are asking from the implementation point of view is not advisable to do.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 21:00
And that is what I am saying all along. You are having problems because that is a bad idea from the implementation point of view. What you are asking from the implementation point of view is not advisable to do.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 21:00
@RuiFRibeiro - The Pihole needs to be used, but if the Pihole fails the system must continue to work seamlessly. There are other people needing to use that system who can't immediately fix it if it is broken if I am not there. Start from the requirements and figure out the implementation to achieve that. Don't you agree?
– Craig Hicks
Feb 16 at 7:06
@RuiFRibeiro - The Pihole needs to be used, but if the Pihole fails the system must continue to work seamlessly. There are other people needing to use that system who can't immediately fix it if it is broken if I am not there. Start from the requirements and figure out the implementation to achieve that. Don't you agree?
– Craig Hicks
Feb 16 at 7:06
|
show 4 more comments
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f500900%2fdnsmasq-dns-nameserver-priority-parameters-strict-order%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f500900%2fdnsmasq-dns-nameserver-priority-parameters-strict-order%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Alternate DNS servers with different views of the world where never a kosher solution, and if I am not wrong, the situation is the same with dnsmask. You should use the pihole for solving all the DNS requests.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 16:28
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely).
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:31
The secondary is for backup if the pihole really fails. For example, a software bug crashes the software (entirely possible), or if the hardware fails (less likely). *** A backup is necessary for others who need immediate continued internet access in case of pihole software or hardware failure *** If you consider the problem closely, it is actually asking to divide the duty of the two servers cleanly, exactly so that "dueling servers" does not happen.
– Craig Hicks
Feb 15 at 20:37
And that is what I am saying all along. You are having problems because that is a bad idea from the implementation point of view. What you are asking from the implementation point of view is not advisable to do.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 15 at 21:00
@RuiFRibeiro - The Pihole needs to be used, but if the Pihole fails the system must continue to work seamlessly. There are other people needing to use that system who can't immediately fix it if it is broken if I am not there. Start from the requirements and figure out the implementation to achieve that. Don't you agree?
– Craig Hicks
Feb 16 at 7:06