Stéphane Graber [2016-06-06 12:27 -0400]:
> > There's a thread here on Ubuntu and systemd-resolved:
> > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2016-June/014964.html
I skipped over the first bunch of noise, I'm now in the middle of it
where some actual meat comes in. Ondřej contacted me privately last
week about it already, and said that he'll follow up with some
consolidated and objective criticism here. Much appreciated!
> - Anything which doesn't use the C library resolving functions, which
> would include any static binary bundling its own copy of those, will
> fallback to /etc/resolv.conf and not get split DNS information or the
> desired fallback mechanism.
This isn't new, though. Anything not using NSS has behaved differently
all the time already, such as not doing LLMNR (libnss-mdns4, for
resolving names in the local network). This mainly affects tools like
"dig", but these probably have a good reason to do things by
> This is likely to affect a whole bunch of Go binaries and similar
> statically built piece of software. It will also, probably more visible
> affect web browsers who have recently all switches to doing their own
> DNS resolving.
Being statically built doesn't mean that these programs can't/don't
use libc or can't do NSS (it's done via dlopen() anyway, not via
shared libs). So I take it Go's runtime library doesn't currently do
> - This breaks downstream DNSSEC validation. Mail servers and some web
> browsers require the ability to read the DNSSEC validation result from
> the DNS reply. Those therefore don't use the libc resolving functions
> and instead do the DNS request themselves, they'd then fall into the
> above problem where they'd use /etc/resolv.conf and miss any split DNS
> or similar configuration done inside resolved.
This is essentialy the same issue as above indeed.
> - Some concerns about it broadcasting queries to all DNS servers rather
> than just the one it's supposed to use for a given domain. Hopefully
> this was just mis-configuration and not how resolved actually works, as
> this would be a pretty big privacy issue.
Right, this is a current bug, I filed it as
> - Not having resolved offer a DNS service itself means we can't
> properly daisy-chain our other DNS/DHCP servers like the dnsmasq
> instances we use for LXC, LXD and libvirt. That means that the
> containers and virtual machines will not be getting the same DNS view as
> the host, being only restricted to hitting the servers in the host
> /etc/resolv.conf without any awareness of split view DNS.
> Unless the above can be fixed somehow, and I very much doubt resolved
> will grow a DNS server any time soon,
There actually was talk about it, but I don't think that'd be
unambiguously good, see below.
> ... the switch to resolved mostly feels like a regression over the
> existing resolvconf+dnsmasq setup we've got right now and which in
> my experience at least, has been working pretty well for us.
Note that this is *only* a setup on desktops with NetworkManager. On
servers, cloud instances etc. we haven't set up any local DNS server;
thus we have bad handling multiple servers with failures, no way to do
split DNS or DNSSEC. The same is true for interfaces that get managed
through ifupdown instead of NM. These issues are what libnss-resolve
is supposed to address. So "working pretty well" is a bit of an
overstatement here :-)
I also doubt that we actually do want to install dnsmasq on servers,
as this would then logically conflict with "real" DNS servers like
bind, pdns, unbound etc. that server admins commonly install. There
isn't even a mutual package conflict etc. This is why I think an NSS
module is much more appropriate on servers (and even desktops), as
this does not prevent you from installing a local DNS server if you
want/need to. The same is true in principle for desktops, although I
don't think that we should enable *both* resolved and dnsmasq as we'd
then have two processes where one would suffice.
So in summary, I don't get any tributes by introducing resolved :-),
and if the server team is happy with installing dnsmasq by default,
we can configure that on servers, too. We would then introduce the
above conflict with real servers and don't have DNSSEC, so that's a
balancing that we'll have to do.
I'm quite convinced that we should find a solution which works on
servers, VMs, and desktops alike, and until Xenial we haven't had
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)