My goodness, that’s some impressive responsiveness ^^
I guess see your point. But then the problem shifts to the upstream dnsmasq instance which acts as DHCP + DNS for the local devices. This is the server ultimately able to translate local names.
I don’t think it’s doable to have two instances of dnsmasq that are able to translate local names interchangeably. That would require two DHCPs to have authority on the network. But I’m no expert so I may be missing something obvious.
Sorry, I was unclear: I use dnsmasq as single source of truth. In its DHCP config, I set machine names, routes and all. And this is because this dnsmasq is the DHCP that it knows how to translate the names of the devices it configured. Pi-hole forwards all DNS requests to dnsmasq.
Now if I use two instances of dnsmasqs, only one can be a DHCP and the other won’t know how to resolve local names, unless it uses the first dnsmasq as upstream. But in scenarios where this first dnsmasq instance is down, we are back to square one.
I had a quick look at resolv.conf’s manpage on Debian and I think @daddy32@lemmy.world’s suggestion of adding a second nameserver would actually work:
nameserver Name server IP address
Internet address of a name server that the resolver should query, either an IPv4 address (in dot notation), or an IPv6 address in colon (and possibly dot) notation as per RFC 2373. Up to MAXNS (currently 3, see <re‐
solv.h>) name servers may be listed, one per keyword. If there are multiple servers, the resolver library queries them in the order listed. If no nameserver entries are present, the default is to use the name server
on the local machine. (The algorithm used is to try a name server, and if the query times out, try the next, until out of name servers, then repeat trying all the name servers until a maximum number of retries are
made.)
According to the doc, the resolver will try each name server in order until one is successful.
fendrax@jlai.lu 6 months ago
My goodness, that’s some impressive responsiveness ^^
I guess see your point. But then the problem shifts to the upstream dnsmasq instance which acts as DHCP + DNS for the local devices. This is the server ultimately able to translate local names.
I don’t think it’s doable to have two instances of dnsmasq that are able to translate local names interchangeably. That would require two DHCPs to have authority on the network. But I’m no expert so I may be missing something obvious.
AtariDump@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You only set one as a DHCP server. DHCP hands out both PiHoles as DNS servers on the network.
Name resolution is handled by DNS and not DHCP.
fendrax@jlai.lu 6 months ago
Sorry, I was unclear: I use dnsmasq as single source of truth. In its DHCP config, I set machine names, routes and all. And this is because this dnsmasq is the DHCP that it knows how to translate the names of the devices it configured. Pi-hole forwards all DNS requests to dnsmasq. Now if I use two instances of dnsmasqs, only one can be a DHCP and the other won’t know how to resolve local names, unless it uses the first dnsmasq as upstream. But in scenarios where this first dnsmasq instance is down, we are back to square one.
fendrax@jlai.lu 6 months ago
I had a quick look at
resolv.conf’s manpage on Debian and I think @daddy32@lemmy.world’s suggestion of adding a second nameserver would actually work:According to the doc, the resolver will try each name server in order until one is successful.
AtariDump@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Why?