Modlog - Divisions by zero
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Dafuck? Removed for rule 3? !selfhosted@lemmy.world what the?

As far as I’m aware running and getting DNS to work on a home network is precisely everything to do with self-hosting.

I get that I’m being a bit of an opinionated asshole, and maybe my post is not overly constructive, but shit, a good rant to start a discussion should not be a reason for removal, least of all for a rule that has blatantly not been violated and that’s the only actual reason I can think of why I’d been banned.

A good rant is literally the most worthwhile content imho, a good hearty debate invites viewpoints and opinions, even if the OP is unpopular. I hate the sterile, overly polite, overly PC tone enforced on some Lemmy communities.

As long as no one is literally insulting other users or spreading misinformation or being discriminatory/xenophobic based on characteristics. I wasn’t even swearing. I’m so done, I’m blocking all of lemmy.world until they get their shit together.

  • Arthur BesseAEnglish
    3·
    1 day ago

    The Pi is definitely running Avahi and spamming multicast, when it attempts to resolve .local, it sends out multicast and unicast simultaneously, even with freshly flushed DNS cache.

    I owe you an apology - I see now that my avahi systems are in fact also sending unicast SOA? local. when I resolve a .local name, and presumably if my recursor told them it was responsible for it instead of NXDomain then I would resolve names through it.

    I was pretty sure that it doesn’t do that, but before telling you that it doesn’t I actually did a test and ran tcpdump -ni any port 53 or port 5353 while resolving some .local names. i even noticed that there was that SOA query being sent to and from localhost (to systemd-resolved) but I saw no answer to it and figured that systemd-resolved was the thing silently ignoring that TLD. But: it turns out that the system I tested on has its systemd-resolved configured for DNSOverTLS so I wasn’t seeing those SOA queries being sent on to the recursor on a different port 🤦

    Sorry!

    It does seem to me like a regrettable choice of the RFC authors to allow both, though, as it is easy to accidentally have a situation where the recursor and mDNS return different answers which would lead to inconsistent results when querying both in parallel.