Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:05:35 +0400 From: Aleksandr A Babaylov <.@babolo.ru> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> Cc: jhell@DataIX.net, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dynamin/Static Resolver Table [netstat like] Message-ID: <20110617120535.GA74911@babolo.ru> In-Reply-To: <20110617.124029.722784011683540958.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <20110616.015317.781291617533474654.hrs@allbsd.org> <20110617022950.GA58034@DataIX.net> <20110617.124029.722784011683540958.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:40:29PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > jhell <jhell@DataIX.net> wrote > in <20110617022950.GA58034@DataIX.net>: > > jh> Gosh, Wouldnt it be something if we could store our dynamic resolver > jh> information with the interface in the same sort of fashion that we store > jh> our routing tables ? and then modify our routines in the library to look > jh> them up via the "resolving tables" and think of resolv.conf as static > jh> routing information only ? > jh> > jh> If we can already do this via resolvconf(8) in order to modify > jh> resolv.conf how hard would it be to adjust to move in this direction ? > > jhell <jhell@DataIX.net> wrote > in <20110617023358.GB58034@DataIX.net>: > > jh> I appologize for the insta-reply, but thinking more along the lines of > jh> this it may come as even more of a benefit to tie this more into the > jh> routing table so so each route can have a dynamic nameserver attached to > jh> it so when setfib(8) is used a whole nother batch of nameserver could > jh> also be used or fall back to the standard resolv.conf. > > I am not sure of the benefit to adopt "same sort of fashion as the > routing table" for RDNSS entries. What is your problem, and how does > your idea solve it? I think jhell's idea is overkill, but I like mount root read only. Symlinks are not beautiful.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110617120535.GA74911>