[radlad]

> Just found out that the systemd developers don't understand DNS (or IPv6).

Just according to Github, systemd has over 2,300 contributors. Which ones are you referring to?

And more to the point, what is this supposed to mean? Did you encounter a bug or something? DNS on Linux is sort of famously a tire fire, see for example https://tailscale.com/blog/sisyphean-dns-client-linux ... IPv6 networking is also famously difficult on Linux, with many users still refusing to even leave it enabled, frustratingly for those of us who care about IPv6.

[phicoh]

Systemd-resolved invents DNS records (not really something you would like to see, makes debugging DNS issues a nightmare). But worse, it populates those DNS records with IPv6 link local addresses, which really have no place in DNS.

Then, when after a nice debugging session why your application behaves so strangely, all the data in DNS is correct, why doesn't it work, you find that this issue has been reported before and was rejected as won't fix, works as intended.

[Dagger2]

Hm, but systemd-resolved mainly doesn't provide DNS services, it provides _name resolution_. Names can be resolved using more sources than just DNS, some of which do support link-locals properly, so it's normal for getaddrinfo() or the other standard name resolution functions to return addresses that aren't in DNS.

i.e. it's not inventing DNS records, because the things returned by getaddrinfo() aren't (exclusively) DNS records.

The debug tool for this is `getent ahosts`. `dig` is certainly useful, but it makes direct DNS queries rather than going via the system's name resolution setup, so it can't tell you what your programs are seeing.

[phicoh]

systemd-resolved responds on port 53. It inserts itself in /etc/resolv.conf as the DNS resolver that is to be used by DNS stub resolvers.

It can do whatever it likes as longs as it follows DNS RFCs when replying to DNS requests.

Redefining recursive DNS resolution as general 'name resolution' is indeed exactly the kind of horror I expect from the systemd project. If systemd-resolved wants to do general name resolution, then just take a different transport protocol (dbus for example) and leave DNS alone.

[Dagger2]

It's not from systemd though. glibc's NSS stuff has been around since... 1996?, and it had support for lookups over NIS in the same year, so getaddrinfo() (or rather gethostbyname(), since this predates getaddrinfo()!) have never just been DNS.

systemd-resolved normally does use a separate protocol, specifically an NSS plugin (see /etc/nsswitch.conf). The DNS server part is mostly only there as a fallback/compatibility hack for software that tries to implement its own name resolution by reading /etc/hosts and /etc/resolv.conf and doing DNS queries.

I suppose "the DNS compatibility hack should follow DNS RFCs" is a reasonable argument... but applications normally go via the NSS plugin anyway, not via that fallback, so it probably wouldn't have helped you much.

[phicoh]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Our software has a stub resolver that is not the one in glibc. It directly issues DNS requests without going through /etc/nsswitch.conf.

It would have been fine if it was getaddrinfo (and it was done properly) because getaddrinfo gives back a socket and that can add the scope ID to the IPv6 link local address. In DNS there is no scope ID, so it will never work in Linux (it would work on Windows, but that's a different story).

[jcgl]

If you don't like those additional name resolution methods, then turn them off. Resolved gives you full control over that, usually on a per-interface basis.

[phicoh]

If you don't like that systemd is broken, then you can turn it off. Yes, that's why people are avoiding systemd. Not so much that the software has bugs, but the attitude of the community.

[radlad]

It's not broken - it's a tradeoff. systemd-resolved is an optional component of systemd. It's not a part of the core. If you don't like the choices it took, you can use another resolver - there are plenty.

I don't think many people are avoiding systemd now - but those who do tend to do it because it non-optionally replaces so much of the system. OP is pointing out that's not the case of systemd-resolved.