If no solution along the lines of those outlined earlier (see comments #28, #29, #34, #37) is forthcoming then nm-dnsmasq should simply be put back into strict-order mode, thus reversing the change made at the suggestion of bug #903854.
Stéphane wrote in #37:
> Switching back to strict-order is a bad idea for the reasons
> listed in bug 903854, namely, we'd loose our biggest
> advantage from using dnsmasq.
The biggest advantage is only a performance advantage under some circumstances. This in no way stacks up against outright failure under other circumstances — circumstances typical of many LANs. If no solution for this bug (#1003842) is forthcoming then it is time to admit that switching off strict-order was the wrong thing to do. Knowing what we know now, we should switch it back on, and only switch it off again when a solution has been found for this bug. If switching on strict-order eliminates the only advantages of using nm-dnsmasq then nm-dnsmasq itself should be switched off (as proposed at bug #1086693) until that time.
It has been a few months since the last comment.
If no solution along the lines of those outlined earlier (see comments #28, #29, #34, #37) is forthcoming then nm-dnsmasq should simply be put back into strict-order mode, thus reversing the change made at the suggestion of bug #903854.
Stéphane wrote in #37:
> Switching back to strict-order is a bad idea for the reasons
> listed in bug 903854, namely, we'd loose our biggest
> advantage from using dnsmasq.
The biggest advantage is only a performance advantage under some circumstances. This in no way stacks up against outright failure under other circumstances — circumstances typical of many LANs. If no solution for this bug (#1003842) is forthcoming then it is time to admit that switching off strict-order was the wrong thing to do. Knowing what we know now, we should switch it back on, and only switch it off again when a solution has been found for this bug. If switching on strict-order eliminates the only advantages of using nm-dnsmasq then nm-dnsmasq itself should be switched off (as proposed at bug #1086693) until that time.