[Dnsmasq-discuss] strict-order still considered broken?

Simon Kelley simon at thekelleys.org.uk
Tue Sep 22 15:24:59 BST 2015

The strict-order option does what it's documented to do, as far as I know.

If what you're actually asking is "does the strict-order option still
not allow me to give priority to a nameserver which has a different idea
of the DNS to the secondary nameserver(s)" then the answer to that is
that it still doesn't, and really can't.

The reason for this is that the transport for DNS is unreliable UDP, so
if queries for your "special" names go to the first nameserver and get a
special answer then sometimes, either the query or the reply will be
lost, and time-out, and then get sent to the secondary nameserver, which
will reply with a different answer to the one you wanted.



On 22/09/15 13:55, Thomas Eliasson wrote:
> Hi!
> Just want to verify that there is no change regarding the 'strict-order'
> option.
> It's still considered broken, and not recommended for use?
> Last note on this I found on the list was in 2009.
> BR
> /Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list