Project

General

Profile

Actions

Feature #5549

closed

Additional DNS entries in General Setup would be good for 3 or more WAN's

Added by Eduard Rozenberg almost 9 years ago. Updated almost 8 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Web Interface
Target version:
Start date:
11/27/2015
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:
Plus Target Version:
Release Notes:

Description

For multi-wan with 3 or more WAN's, it would be good to have additional DNS server fields in General Setup.

Currently there are 4 possible entries.

With 3 WAN's for example, assigning 2 different DNS servers to each of the WAN gateways would require 6 total entries in General Setup
because pfSense recommends that each gateway be assigned its own unique DNS servers.

Actions #1

Updated by Bipin Chandra almost 9 years ago

+1 and so far i used a modified system.php file adding more of those and they get properly saved in the config and also used by the system

Actions #2

Updated by Michael Kellogg almost 8 years ago

this is true add ipv6 and it has even more need

Actions #3

Updated by Kill Bill almost 8 years ago

Maybe someone could instead fix/nuke the misleading note from the GUI, instead of putting in more DNS servers that will never get used for anything? (Cf. https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/include/resolv.h#L128)

Actions #4

Updated by Jim Pingle almost 8 years ago

That's for the host resolver itself -- dnsmasq and unbound in forwarding mode will pick up more.

Actions #5

Updated by Kill Bill almost 8 years ago

Yup. It'd be awesome if those settings were moved to the relevant place (i.e., DNS forwarder/resolver settings). This thing is just causing perpetual user confusion. Some description improvements here: https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/pull/3338

Actions #6

Updated by Phillip Davis almost 8 years ago

PR https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/pull/3373
It seems to work too easily, what have I forgotten?

Actions #7

Updated by Renato Botelho almost 8 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Feedback
  • Assignee set to Renato Botelho
  • Target version set to 2.4.0
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

PR has been merged, thanks!

Actions #8

Updated by Phillip Davis almost 8 years ago

Note: I kept this in the General Setup page where it has been since eternity. Just made it so a variable number of DNS Servers can be entered. (Kill Bill mentioned moving the UI for this elsewhere)

Actions #9

Updated by Michael Kellogg almost 8 years ago

getting this error whe trying to add more dns servers

A gateway can not be assigned to DNS '8.8.8.8' server which is on a directly connected network.
A gateway can not be assigned to DNS '8.8.4.4' server which is on a directly connected network.

2.3.3-DEVELOPMENT (amd64) 
built on Fri Jan 13 14:45:19 CST 2017
FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE-p15
Actions #10

Updated by Michael Kellogg almost 8 years ago

that error happens re-saving current setup with 4 dns servers

Actions #11

Updated by Michael Kellogg almost 8 years ago

ok already had manually added staic route for 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 causes failure in error checking

Actions #12

Updated by Phillip Davis almost 8 years ago

So that sort of config should have failed the input validation already prior to his change. The code considers anything on a "really locally connected" network or pointed to by a static route in the config to be "local" and a DNS server on such a network/address should not have a gateway specified.

I guess it would be possible to do more validation checks, and if the existing static route for that address already points out the selected gateway, then it is OK. But actually it is easy for the user to either remove the static route or not select a gateway for the DNS server (and then it will use the static route they already set up).

Actions #13

Updated by Jim Pingle almost 8 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved

This seems to work fine as-is. No need to check/validate someone's unintentional misconfiguration. At least it did error (correctly) rather than trying to clobber the route.

I've been running with this for a few days and haven't seen any problems. Seems solid to me.

Thanks!

Actions #14

Updated by Jim Pingle almost 8 years ago

  • Category set to Web Interface
  • Target version changed from 2.4.0 to 2.3.3
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF