Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Using multiple DNS servers options - implementation note missing #7981

Open
OndrejPacay opened this issue Jan 8, 2019 · 5 comments
Open
Labels
area/engine Issue affects Docker engine/daemon area/networking Relates to anything around networking lifecycle/frozen

Comments

@OndrejPacay
Copy link

File: engine/userguide/networking/default_network/configure-dns.md

Hi I have found (the hard way), that when you specify multiple --dns options on the command line (or in daemon.json) then name resolution works by default this way:

  • fire DNS request to all nameservers provided
  • use the first response ... even if it responds by not found ... in other words, there is no fixed 'hierarchy' when using those nameservers and the result can be random for hosts that are not resolved by all nameservers listed.

This behaviour is probably sometimes beneficial, but should be better documented since:

  • does not work the same as in linux/unix ... there the other nameservers are queried only if the 1st is unreachable
  • creates intermittent problems when combining an intranet-only nameserver with a public one. For example when resolving an intranet hostname in such setup it can happen that 8.8.8.8 responds first that the hostname is not found and the resolution fails. ....in contrast it will resolve ok, when the intranet nameserver responds first.

Regards, Ondrej

@OndrejPacay OndrejPacay changed the title Multiple DNS implementation note missing Using multiple DNS servers options - implementation note missing Jan 8, 2019
@ghost ghost added area/engine Issue affects Docker engine/daemon priority/P3-minor area/networking Relates to anything around networking labels Jan 10, 2019
@nigelpoulton
Copy link
Contributor

Wondering if this should be filed as a potential bug against Engine @thaJeztah ??

I'd at least want someone to confirm this is intended behavior before documenting it.

@docker-robott
Copy link
Collaborator

There hasn't been any activity on this issue for a long time.
If the problem is still relevant, mark the issue as fresh with a /remove-lifecycle stale comment.
If not, this issue will be closed in 14 days. This helps our maintainers focus on the active issues.

Prevent issues from auto-closing with a /lifecycle frozen comment.

/lifecycle stale

1 similar comment
@docker-robott
Copy link
Collaborator

There hasn't been any activity on this issue for a long time.
If the problem is still relevant, mark the issue as fresh with a /remove-lifecycle stale comment.
If not, this issue will be closed in 14 days. This helps our maintainers focus on the active issues.

Prevent issues from auto-closing with a /lifecycle frozen comment.

/lifecycle stale

@docker-robott
Copy link
Collaborator

Closed issues are locked after 30 days of inactivity.
This helps our team focus on active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue.

/lifecycle locked

@docker docker locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 13, 2023
@docker docker unlocked this conversation Apr 13, 2023
@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member

Looks like I missed this one in my notifications. Let me reopen; perhaps @akerouanton and @dvdksn could have a look at this. From the top of my head, I think some aspects may influence DNS lookup behaviour;

Perhaps some mention of this (with relevant links so that we don't have to do a deep-dive into everything) could be useful (maybe for a troubleshooting section 🤔)

@thaJeztah thaJeztah reopened this Apr 13, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/engine Issue affects Docker engine/daemon area/networking Relates to anything around networking lifecycle/frozen
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants