NixOS Networking | 903 Members | |
| Declaratively manage your switching, routing, wireless, tunneling and more. | 263 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 9 Jul 2025 | ||
| * | 01:17:32 | |
* do we need to disable the restart limit as well? also Restart = "on-failure" should be the default? no, it isn't aaaa | 01:18:27 | |
| theoretically there is still a chance that systemd will keep fighting against itself forever 🤓 | 01:19:59 | |
| 21:01:32 | ||
| 21:02:18 | ||
| 10 Jul 2025 | ||
| 02:58:34 | ||
| Hey all, hoping someone might be able to help with an issue I'm hitting configuring VLANs. Use case is pretty simple, the only connection should be over the vlan, no untagged traffic or IP assigned. Following the docs (https://nixos.wiki/wiki/Systemd-networkd#VLAN) I came up with this systemd-networkd config, but pinging even local addresses returns unreachable. Any thoughts, or ideas on how to debug?
| 04:43:33 | |
| And here's the output of a couple commands to show the state, LMK if there are any other commands that would be helpful
| 05:42:58 | |
| looks good from here | 12:10:14 | |
| I'd expect the issue will be on the switchport or the other endpoint | 12:10:36 | |
| different question … what is the least awful way to make sure a consumer of a module I'm providing uses a DNSSEC validating resolver? | 14:21:04 | |
| given that the resolver can be on the local machine (preferable) or not this seems a bit difficult to assert on 🤪 | 14:22:50 | |
| seems like not really something you can detect before runtime | 14:23:05 | |
| within reason probably not at all | 14:23:10 | |
| so I'm wondering what the right approximation would be | 14:23:11 | |
| You could check if kresd is used with dnssec checks on | 14:23:24 | |
I would just do nothing or have services.X.yesIPromiseImUsingDNSSec | 14:23:25 | |
| especially for remote it's hopeless, but even locally there can be all kinds of layers between an enabled service and what actually ends up being used for DNS resolution | 14:23:49 | |
so one thing I could do is check for networking.resolvconf.useLocalResolver | 14:24:14 | |
| the other thing, that I found super awful was
| 14:25:03 | |
| * the other thing, that I found super awful was
| 14:25:05 | |
| that would (sorry) break resolved with DNSSEC | 14:25:24 | |
| but then I found people used dnscrypt2-proxy and other weird stuff | 14:25:28 | |
dnscrypt-proxy2 doesn't do DNSSEC validation | 14:25:42 | |
| resolved is fucked for this use case, I don't care 🙂 | 14:25:47 | |
| I think it'll pass on the bit from the upstream resolver and that's all | 14:25:52 | |
| I don't really think asserting on dynamic network conditions is something a module should be doing at all tbh. if the software absolutely needs the DNSSEC validation bit in responses it should be checking for it itself | 14:26:32 | |
| oh, it does | 14:27:32 | |
| the software is postfix for example | 14:27:36 | |
| 14:28:05 | |