[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freebsd-net
Subject:    Re: Dynamin/Static Resolver Table [netstat like]
From:       Aleksandr A Babaylov <"." () babolo ! ru>
Date:       2011-06-17 12:05:35
Message-ID: 20110617120535.GA74911 () babolo ! ru
[Download RAW message or body]

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.


_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]