
Systemd-resolved is broken - fanf2
http://edgeofsanity.net/rant/2017/12/20/systemd-resolved-is-broken.html
======
JdeBP
This Hacker News discussion from 3 months ago explains why there is no such
single thing as "The Old Behaviour".

* [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228940](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228940)

It also explains that "The New Behaviour" has some roots in RFC 1035, which
discusses keeping state about which servers are responsive in section 7.2.

~~~
benchaney
That is far from the consensus in the thread you quoted.

Some choice quotes:

> SystemD is following a standard, while people are relying on an
> implementation. One that has been stable for a long time and has become a
> de-facto standard. Think of e.g. memcpy on BSD - even though the standard
> says memcpy between overlapped regions is not defined, the implementation
> does memmove in that case, because that's what people expect to happen. If
> you're replacing a system that has historically provided guarantees above
> and beyond those given by a bespoke standard, you should emulate them, or
> you'll cause users a lot of pain.

> SystemD devs have chosen to inflict pain on their users, hence the users are
> not happy.

And

> Using each server in order is the expected behavior. From resolv.conf(5)
    
    
        nameserver Name server IP address
            Internet address of a name server that the resolver
            should query [...]. If there are multiple servers,
            the resolver library queries them in the order listed.
            [...] (The algorithm used is to try a name server, and
            if the query times out, try the next, until out of
            name servers, then repeat trying all the name servers
            until a maximum number of retries are made.)

~~~
JdeBP
I said that it was explained there. That you can also find people who get
things _wrong_ only reinforces my point about this being a common
misunderstanding of the DNS. All of those not-very-choice-at-all quotes were
debunked in that discussion, including the bunkum that this is a systemd
thing, disproven by the fact that these sorts of assertions had to be debunked
years before systemd was even invented.

~~~
benchaney
If by "it was explained there" you mean "there was a discussion there and some
people agree with me", then sure "it was explained there". In fact, neither of
those quotes were debunked, the only _attempt_ to debunk them is based on the
idea that there were two revolvers before systemd-resolved, and only one of
them held this behavior. That is a really silly arguments because the main
complaint is that systemd-resolved is being used as a drop in replacement that
doesn't obey the defacto spec established by its predecessor.

The irony here is that there are real arguments for changing the behavior (and
real arguments against it), but you are ignoring them to instead insist that
any complaints are "debunked" when they clearly aren't.

