Hi epoch1970
Thank you very much for your reply. Sorry for the delay but I was occupied with other business.
I would like to avoid the netns as I think it might complicate other issues. Also the local resolver seems a bit of a cludge. The idea I have is to direct dns quieries either to pi-hole for filtering or to unbound to avoid list related issues depending on the selected SSID. Also I've pointed FTL at unbound as it's upstream resolver. Having a local resolver to direct the traffic either way seems like an added complication/cludge.
I'm not critizing your suggestion at all, I realize the options are limited. I was just hoping for something like a parameterization of the 'upstream' resolver tha I could somehow pass through NM into the dnsmasq command string. May be via an edit of one of the NetworkManager files. But from what I've read so far NM seems very inflexible when it comes to specification of the call it makes to dnsmasq.
I haven't really used NM in the past but thought I'd give it a wirl. It seems to be very easy to use and works well if you are only asking for a basic setup. But when you want to add some customization it falls flat on its face; at least in my example. So now I'm looking at going back to the interface file or netplan so I can specify everything from the ground up.
Following this experience I can't see why I would use NM for anything but a basic setup. NM seems to be referred to as 'modern' and the interface file as 'old fashioned' But NM seems to me to be easy to use but limit to basic configurations. Whereas the inteface file etc relies on manual specification but gives you all the flexibility you could need because you are specifying exacly what you want. Sure you can specify details in NM but it seems rather clunky and one needs to appriate how the different network compents interface and how the various paramters in each component behave inorder to get thing working or Not as the case may be. If you have that amound of background knowledge you might just as well write the specification manually. Or Am I missing something?
Thanks again for your suggestions.
Thank you very much for your reply. Sorry for the delay but I was occupied with other business.
I would like to avoid the netns as I think it might complicate other issues. Also the local resolver seems a bit of a cludge. The idea I have is to direct dns quieries either to pi-hole for filtering or to unbound to avoid list related issues depending on the selected SSID. Also I've pointed FTL at unbound as it's upstream resolver. Having a local resolver to direct the traffic either way seems like an added complication/cludge.
I'm not critizing your suggestion at all, I realize the options are limited. I was just hoping for something like a parameterization of the 'upstream' resolver tha I could somehow pass through NM into the dnsmasq command string. May be via an edit of one of the NetworkManager files. But from what I've read so far NM seems very inflexible when it comes to specification of the call it makes to dnsmasq.
I haven't really used NM in the past but thought I'd give it a wirl. It seems to be very easy to use and works well if you are only asking for a basic setup. But when you want to add some customization it falls flat on its face; at least in my example. So now I'm looking at going back to the interface file or netplan so I can specify everything from the ground up.
Following this experience I can't see why I would use NM for anything but a basic setup. NM seems to be referred to as 'modern' and the interface file as 'old fashioned' But NM seems to me to be easy to use but limit to basic configurations. Whereas the inteface file etc relies on manual specification but gives you all the flexibility you could need because you are specifying exacly what you want. Sure you can specify details in NM but it seems rather clunky and one needs to appriate how the different network compents interface and how the various paramters in each component behave inorder to get thing working or Not as the case may be. If you have that amound of background knowledge you might just as well write the specification manually. Or Am I missing something?
Thanks again for your suggestions.
Statistics: Posted by 101charlie — Wed Feb 07, 2024 12:07 am