Redirect all outgoing DNS queries to local stub resolver at 127.0.0.1:53What are DNS server, resolver and stub resolver?TPROXY for redirecting UDP on arbitrary portsHow to configure Unbound to use DNSSEC?What are the most restrictive external firewall / DNS listening port settings I can have for my DNS server (internal clients only)iptables - 2 Internetprovider - routingLocal (127.0.1.1) DNS resolver ignores LAN DNS serverHow to route traffic from a specific user through a VPN on LinuxRunning Ubuntu Router using Iptables Services; How to Block UPnP UDP Traffic Forwarding Between Private IP and Public Address (NAT Involved)?What are DNS server, resolver and stub resolver?route traffic of all connected wireless clients to one particular IP and portForward traffic between two hosts, first with a few IP, second with 1 IP and lxd containers
What causes the sudden spool-up sound from an F-16 when enabling afterburner?
Is ipsum/ipsa/ipse a third person pronoun, or can it serve other functions?
Does it makes sense to buy a new cycle to learn riding?
Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors
Does the average primeness of natural numbers tend to zero?
Can I legally use front facing blue light in the UK?
New order #4: World
A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky
extract characters between two commas?
Information to fellow intern about hiring?
How to deal with fear of taking dependencies
Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?
Prime joint compound before latex paint?
Is every set a filtered colimit of finite sets?
Shall I use personal or official e-mail account when registering to external websites for work purpose?
Lied on resume at previous job
Patience, young "Padovan"
I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine
What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?
Is this food a bread or a loaf?
Is there a familial term for apples and pears?
How to move the player while also allowing forces to affect it
What are the advantages and disadvantages of running one shots compared to campaigns?
Is there a way to make member function NOT callable from constructor?
Redirect all outgoing DNS queries to local stub resolver at 127.0.0.1:53
What are DNS server, resolver and stub resolver?TPROXY for redirecting UDP on arbitrary portsHow to configure Unbound to use DNSSEC?What are the most restrictive external firewall / DNS listening port settings I can have for my DNS server (internal clients only)iptables - 2 Internetprovider - routingLocal (127.0.1.1) DNS resolver ignores LAN DNS serverHow to route traffic from a specific user through a VPN on LinuxRunning Ubuntu Router using Iptables Services; How to Block UPnP UDP Traffic Forwarding Between Private IP and Public Address (NAT Involved)?What are DNS server, resolver and stub resolver?route traffic of all connected wireless clients to one particular IP and portForward traffic between two hosts, first with a few IP, second with 1 IP and lxd containers
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I am attempting to redirect all outgoing DNS queries on my Linux box
to my local caching stub resolver (unbound).
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE
When I use the above rules, all the outgoing DNS queries are intercepted and redirected to the DNS server at 1.1.1.1
However, if I replace the '1.1.1.1' with '127.0.0.1', all DNS queries fail and are not directed to my local stub resolver.
I did pass the below sysctl parameter
sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.eth0.route_localnet=1
but my problem remained the same. Any pointers?
iptables dns unbound
New contributor
add a comment |
I am attempting to redirect all outgoing DNS queries on my Linux box
to my local caching stub resolver (unbound).
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE
When I use the above rules, all the outgoing DNS queries are intercepted and redirected to the DNS server at 1.1.1.1
However, if I replace the '1.1.1.1' with '127.0.0.1', all DNS queries fail and are not directed to my local stub resolver.
I did pass the below sysctl parameter
sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.eth0.route_localnet=1
but my problem remained the same. Any pointers?
iptables dns unbound
New contributor
2
That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132
– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:20
add a comment |
I am attempting to redirect all outgoing DNS queries on my Linux box
to my local caching stub resolver (unbound).
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE
When I use the above rules, all the outgoing DNS queries are intercepted and redirected to the DNS server at 1.1.1.1
However, if I replace the '1.1.1.1' with '127.0.0.1', all DNS queries fail and are not directed to my local stub resolver.
I did pass the below sysctl parameter
sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.eth0.route_localnet=1
but my problem remained the same. Any pointers?
iptables dns unbound
New contributor
I am attempting to redirect all outgoing DNS queries on my Linux box
to my local caching stub resolver (unbound).
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE
When I use the above rules, all the outgoing DNS queries are intercepted and redirected to the DNS server at 1.1.1.1
However, if I replace the '1.1.1.1' with '127.0.0.1', all DNS queries fail and are not directed to my local stub resolver.
I did pass the below sysctl parameter
sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.eth0.route_localnet=1
but my problem remained the same. Any pointers?
iptables dns unbound
iptables dns unbound
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked Apr 5 at 18:36
donghakim187donghakim187
82
82
New contributor
New contributor
2
That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132
– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:20
add a comment |
2
That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132
– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:20
2
2
That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132
– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:20
That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132
– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:20
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
What becomes clear if debugging with strace
, and nc
/socat
, is that nat/POSTROUTING
's MASQUERADE
didn't alter the initially chosen address intended to be used for going out. Probably because it's still considered a local address about to be "routed" to lo
so doesn't need alteration: the MASQUERADE
rule has no effect here.
Anyway, that's what happened. So when replying an UDP query, the server actually connects back to the source which sent data, now use as destination. Naturally the best source is chosen to be used for this destination, the same local address, which is not 127.0.0.1. So here's what's happening if following this with conntrack -E
, with an example local IP of 192.0.2.2 and a destination of 198.51.100.1 UDP port 53:
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=40037 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037 [UNREPLIED] src=172.16.0.22 dst=172.16.0.22 sport=40037 dport=53
The reply is not correlated to the initial query (because the source IP isn't 127.0.0.1) so conntrack is handling this as a 2nd flow. Meanwhile the client put its UDP socket in connected mode, meaning an UDP packet received from the wrong source IP (even if correct ports) will be rejected, and the server receives an ICMP error (this can be witnessed with tcpdump -i lo
).
The correction is quite simple: don't use MASQUERADE
but SNAT
. Of course it now has to be specialized for this specific flow (you don't want to SNAT
everything to 127.0.0.1), so replace the MASQUERADE
line with this instead:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1
With the corrected flow, the local server now replies using conntrack's expected address which now associate it in the previous flow and de-SNATs it correctly:
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
[UPDATE] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
The client receives the expected source 198.51.100.1 and all works as intended.
TCP doesn't suffer the same result, because once the connection is established between 192.0.2.2 and 127.0.0.1, the reply is within the same established connection, it's not a new connection as with UDP, so will have already the expected source and is handled correctly by conntrack. Better anyway add this for consistency:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1
Two notes:
for your specific case,
route_localnet
is not needed because all packets are local and stay onlo
. The opposite: forwarding elsewhere packets sent to 127.0.0.1 would require it (as well as other tricks).You will probably need additional exception rules if your DNS server is also a DNS client (which would be the case for a recursive DNS server) sending queries outside, or its own queries will be rerouted to itself creating a loop. Usually solved by having the server running with a specific user and using iptables'
-m owner
match. Something like inserting before each group of rules (innat/OUTPUT
andnat/POSTROUTING
) this:iptables -t nat -I .... -m owner --uid-owner unbound -j RETURN
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
donghakim187 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f510781%2fredirect-all-outgoing-dns-queries-to-local-stub-resolver-at-127-0-0-153%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
What becomes clear if debugging with strace
, and nc
/socat
, is that nat/POSTROUTING
's MASQUERADE
didn't alter the initially chosen address intended to be used for going out. Probably because it's still considered a local address about to be "routed" to lo
so doesn't need alteration: the MASQUERADE
rule has no effect here.
Anyway, that's what happened. So when replying an UDP query, the server actually connects back to the source which sent data, now use as destination. Naturally the best source is chosen to be used for this destination, the same local address, which is not 127.0.0.1. So here's what's happening if following this with conntrack -E
, with an example local IP of 192.0.2.2 and a destination of 198.51.100.1 UDP port 53:
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=40037 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037 [UNREPLIED] src=172.16.0.22 dst=172.16.0.22 sport=40037 dport=53
The reply is not correlated to the initial query (because the source IP isn't 127.0.0.1) so conntrack is handling this as a 2nd flow. Meanwhile the client put its UDP socket in connected mode, meaning an UDP packet received from the wrong source IP (even if correct ports) will be rejected, and the server receives an ICMP error (this can be witnessed with tcpdump -i lo
).
The correction is quite simple: don't use MASQUERADE
but SNAT
. Of course it now has to be specialized for this specific flow (you don't want to SNAT
everything to 127.0.0.1), so replace the MASQUERADE
line with this instead:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1
With the corrected flow, the local server now replies using conntrack's expected address which now associate it in the previous flow and de-SNATs it correctly:
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
[UPDATE] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
The client receives the expected source 198.51.100.1 and all works as intended.
TCP doesn't suffer the same result, because once the connection is established between 192.0.2.2 and 127.0.0.1, the reply is within the same established connection, it's not a new connection as with UDP, so will have already the expected source and is handled correctly by conntrack. Better anyway add this for consistency:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1
Two notes:
for your specific case,
route_localnet
is not needed because all packets are local and stay onlo
. The opposite: forwarding elsewhere packets sent to 127.0.0.1 would require it (as well as other tricks).You will probably need additional exception rules if your DNS server is also a DNS client (which would be the case for a recursive DNS server) sending queries outside, or its own queries will be rerouted to itself creating a loop. Usually solved by having the server running with a specific user and using iptables'
-m owner
match. Something like inserting before each group of rules (innat/OUTPUT
andnat/POSTROUTING
) this:iptables -t nat -I .... -m owner --uid-owner unbound -j RETURN
add a comment |
What becomes clear if debugging with strace
, and nc
/socat
, is that nat/POSTROUTING
's MASQUERADE
didn't alter the initially chosen address intended to be used for going out. Probably because it's still considered a local address about to be "routed" to lo
so doesn't need alteration: the MASQUERADE
rule has no effect here.
Anyway, that's what happened. So when replying an UDP query, the server actually connects back to the source which sent data, now use as destination. Naturally the best source is chosen to be used for this destination, the same local address, which is not 127.0.0.1. So here's what's happening if following this with conntrack -E
, with an example local IP of 192.0.2.2 and a destination of 198.51.100.1 UDP port 53:
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=40037 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037 [UNREPLIED] src=172.16.0.22 dst=172.16.0.22 sport=40037 dport=53
The reply is not correlated to the initial query (because the source IP isn't 127.0.0.1) so conntrack is handling this as a 2nd flow. Meanwhile the client put its UDP socket in connected mode, meaning an UDP packet received from the wrong source IP (even if correct ports) will be rejected, and the server receives an ICMP error (this can be witnessed with tcpdump -i lo
).
The correction is quite simple: don't use MASQUERADE
but SNAT
. Of course it now has to be specialized for this specific flow (you don't want to SNAT
everything to 127.0.0.1), so replace the MASQUERADE
line with this instead:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1
With the corrected flow, the local server now replies using conntrack's expected address which now associate it in the previous flow and de-SNATs it correctly:
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
[UPDATE] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
The client receives the expected source 198.51.100.1 and all works as intended.
TCP doesn't suffer the same result, because once the connection is established between 192.0.2.2 and 127.0.0.1, the reply is within the same established connection, it's not a new connection as with UDP, so will have already the expected source and is handled correctly by conntrack. Better anyway add this for consistency:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1
Two notes:
for your specific case,
route_localnet
is not needed because all packets are local and stay onlo
. The opposite: forwarding elsewhere packets sent to 127.0.0.1 would require it (as well as other tricks).You will probably need additional exception rules if your DNS server is also a DNS client (which would be the case for a recursive DNS server) sending queries outside, or its own queries will be rerouted to itself creating a loop. Usually solved by having the server running with a specific user and using iptables'
-m owner
match. Something like inserting before each group of rules (innat/OUTPUT
andnat/POSTROUTING
) this:iptables -t nat -I .... -m owner --uid-owner unbound -j RETURN
add a comment |
What becomes clear if debugging with strace
, and nc
/socat
, is that nat/POSTROUTING
's MASQUERADE
didn't alter the initially chosen address intended to be used for going out. Probably because it's still considered a local address about to be "routed" to lo
so doesn't need alteration: the MASQUERADE
rule has no effect here.
Anyway, that's what happened. So when replying an UDP query, the server actually connects back to the source which sent data, now use as destination. Naturally the best source is chosen to be used for this destination, the same local address, which is not 127.0.0.1. So here's what's happening if following this with conntrack -E
, with an example local IP of 192.0.2.2 and a destination of 198.51.100.1 UDP port 53:
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=40037 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037 [UNREPLIED] src=172.16.0.22 dst=172.16.0.22 sport=40037 dport=53
The reply is not correlated to the initial query (because the source IP isn't 127.0.0.1) so conntrack is handling this as a 2nd flow. Meanwhile the client put its UDP socket in connected mode, meaning an UDP packet received from the wrong source IP (even if correct ports) will be rejected, and the server receives an ICMP error (this can be witnessed with tcpdump -i lo
).
The correction is quite simple: don't use MASQUERADE
but SNAT
. Of course it now has to be specialized for this specific flow (you don't want to SNAT
everything to 127.0.0.1), so replace the MASQUERADE
line with this instead:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1
With the corrected flow, the local server now replies using conntrack's expected address which now associate it in the previous flow and de-SNATs it correctly:
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
[UPDATE] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
The client receives the expected source 198.51.100.1 and all works as intended.
TCP doesn't suffer the same result, because once the connection is established between 192.0.2.2 and 127.0.0.1, the reply is within the same established connection, it's not a new connection as with UDP, so will have already the expected source and is handled correctly by conntrack. Better anyway add this for consistency:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1
Two notes:
for your specific case,
route_localnet
is not needed because all packets are local and stay onlo
. The opposite: forwarding elsewhere packets sent to 127.0.0.1 would require it (as well as other tricks).You will probably need additional exception rules if your DNS server is also a DNS client (which would be the case for a recursive DNS server) sending queries outside, or its own queries will be rerouted to itself creating a loop. Usually solved by having the server running with a specific user and using iptables'
-m owner
match. Something like inserting before each group of rules (innat/OUTPUT
andnat/POSTROUTING
) this:iptables -t nat -I .... -m owner --uid-owner unbound -j RETURN
What becomes clear if debugging with strace
, and nc
/socat
, is that nat/POSTROUTING
's MASQUERADE
didn't alter the initially chosen address intended to be used for going out. Probably because it's still considered a local address about to be "routed" to lo
so doesn't need alteration: the MASQUERADE
rule has no effect here.
Anyway, that's what happened. So when replying an UDP query, the server actually connects back to the source which sent data, now use as destination. Naturally the best source is chosen to be used for this destination, the same local address, which is not 127.0.0.1. So here's what's happening if following this with conntrack -E
, with an example local IP of 192.0.2.2 and a destination of 198.51.100.1 UDP port 53:
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=40037 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037 [UNREPLIED] src=172.16.0.22 dst=172.16.0.22 sport=40037 dport=53
The reply is not correlated to the initial query (because the source IP isn't 127.0.0.1) so conntrack is handling this as a 2nd flow. Meanwhile the client put its UDP socket in connected mode, meaning an UDP packet received from the wrong source IP (even if correct ports) will be rejected, and the server receives an ICMP error (this can be witnessed with tcpdump -i lo
).
The correction is quite simple: don't use MASQUERADE
but SNAT
. Of course it now has to be specialized for this specific flow (you don't want to SNAT
everything to 127.0.0.1), so replace the MASQUERADE
line with this instead:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1
With the corrected flow, the local server now replies using conntrack's expected address which now associate it in the previous flow and de-SNATs it correctly:
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
[UPDATE] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
The client receives the expected source 198.51.100.1 and all works as intended.
TCP doesn't suffer the same result, because once the connection is established between 192.0.2.2 and 127.0.0.1, the reply is within the same established connection, it's not a new connection as with UDP, so will have already the expected source and is handled correctly by conntrack. Better anyway add this for consistency:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1
Two notes:
for your specific case,
route_localnet
is not needed because all packets are local and stay onlo
. The opposite: forwarding elsewhere packets sent to 127.0.0.1 would require it (as well as other tricks).You will probably need additional exception rules if your DNS server is also a DNS client (which would be the case for a recursive DNS server) sending queries outside, or its own queries will be rerouted to itself creating a loop. Usually solved by having the server running with a specific user and using iptables'
-m owner
match. Something like inserting before each group of rules (innat/OUTPUT
andnat/POSTROUTING
) this:iptables -t nat -I .... -m owner --uid-owner unbound -j RETURN
edited Apr 5 at 21:35
answered Apr 5 at 21:13
A.BA.B
5,94711030
5,94711030
add a comment |
add a comment |
donghakim187 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
donghakim187 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
donghakim187 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
donghakim187 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f510781%2fredirect-all-outgoing-dns-queries-to-local-stub-resolver-at-127-0-0-153%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132
– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:20