[Dnsmasq-discuss] Having dnsmasq use non-default routing table

[imnozi at gmail.com]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 14:52:30 +0200
Matthias May via Dnsmasq-discuss <dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk> wrote:

> On 23/09/2023 02:41, Wink Saville wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 4:32 PM Matthias May via Dnsmasq-discuss
> > <dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk> wrote:  
> >>
> >> On 22/09/2023 18:27, Wink Saville wrote:  
> >>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023, 06:34 Luigi Baldoni <aloisio at gmx.com> wrote:  
> >>>>     Hello,
> >>>> after a few days of fruitless efforts, I thought of asking you all directly.
> >>>>
> >>>> I need dnsmasq to send its queries to the upstream server via a different
> >>>> route than everything else. I've tried adding the @interface parameter to
> >>>> the --server option but I don't think I quite understand how it's supposed
> >>>> to work.
> >>>> Then I've attempted to mark the packets originating from the dnsmasq process
> >>>> via the iptables owner module, also with little success.
> >>>>
> >>>> Before I proceed any further with these experiments, I would like to know
> >>>> whether I'm missing something, or if someone has found a different way to
> >>>> do this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks  
> >>> I think your question is: How do I configure dnsmasq on Linux to send
> >>> its upstream DNS queries using a specific route?
> >>>
> >>> Here is GPT-4 answer:
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://chat.openai.com/share/47fe1f23-57b6-4bbb-b51d-c4bf3818ef__;!!I9LPvj3b!BOetutoPDMZVnmN8eLyHRg_93gZ4QBXVK9yRGbAdpa0cFIkcjOvTnrwVxE7UDVbqoi1GyC1C38Fqgutf$  df
> >>>
> >>> And Bard answer: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://g.co/bard/share/866e99f101bf__;!!I9LPvj3b!BOetutoPDMZVnmN8eLyHRg_93gZ4QBXVK9yRGbAdpa0cFIkcjOvTnrwVxE7UDVbqoi1GyC1C319ebuBN$
> >>>
> >>> If I've got the question wrong provide the proper question and I'll ask
> >>>
> >>> -- Wink
> >>>  
> >> Hi Wink
> >>
> >> The link to openai returns a 404. What is the answer it provided? (pure
> >> interest).
> >>
> >> The bard answer looks to me like garbage. I don't think the parameters
> >> it refers to actually exist...
> >>
> >> BR
> >> Matthias  
> >
> > Try the one below, I made a mistake as Bots do too :)
> >
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://chat.openai.com/share/47fe1f23-57b6-4bbb-b51d-c4bf3818efdf__;!!I9LPvj3b!BL7TTHnGyi-f6LFGBlpqC1YIqwzB9d4erTyuO1c25G0Lis9AGe-B2BIFaUjM9bitxr9YUyHGbB64J0OP$
> >
> > -- Wink  
> 
> Ok, this answer seems to be sane.
> Probably doesn't solve Luigi's issue, but make sense :)
> 
> BR
> Matthias

The difference between the two (IIRC when I looked at it the other day):
  - One routes *all* traffic, including DNS through the other IF.
  - The other routes only DNS to the other IF. It seemed OK on the surface.

Neal

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss