Hello:

On 19 Mar 2025 at 7:37, Ralph Ronnquist via Dng wrote:

> RTFM :)
Right.
Thanks for the heads up. 8^D

> ... been part of the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) for
> a very long time ...
I see.

>From what I have seen and read on the web, the great many complaints
from users that did not take kindly to their DNS settings getting
changed without notice *also* seem to have started a long time ago,
impossible for me to say with any certainty if both timelines match.

What I can say is that that specific part of the DHCP ended up being
a severe nuisance till I decided to drop [connman] and use
[ifupdown].

Out of nowhere my [Pi-hole] seup was no longer working because my
headless VM had stopped being my DNS, without my intervention or
knowledge.

> ... clients typically have configuration options whether to request
> domain settings from the DHCP server or not.
I see ...
[connman] and [network-manager] seem to do so.
WiCD did not and *that* was what I was used to.

ie: that my DNS settings were *my* DNS settings and not my ISP's.

> ... dhclient is configured in /etc/dhcp/dhclient.conf ...
> ... requests those by default ...
> ... would have to change that configuration to not do so.
I see.

That would be here:

[code]
--- snip ---
send host-name = gethostname(); request subnet-mask,
broadcast-address, time-offset, routers, domain-name,
domain-name-servers, domain-search, host-name, dhcp6.name-servers,
dhcp6.domain-search, dhcp6.fqdn, dhcp6.sntp-servers,
netbios-name-servers, netbios-scope, interface-mtu,
rfc3442-classless-static-routes, ntp-servers;
--- snip ---
[/code]

ie: edit out [domain-name-servers]

> ... probably true that the script you found implements the
> handling of that part of the response ...
> ... also possible to address it by changing that implementation.
Right.

Evidently the [connman] and [network-manager] developers just made
use of what the DHCP configuration offered, albeit without much
thought about what the average Linux user might actually want to do
with their DNS settings.

I mean, just *what* were they thinking ...
Windows?

In any case (in my opinion) the problem lies with the DHCP
configuration and how it is implemented, no matter how long ago that
was.

So maybe the meta-package I suggested would have to address
[/etc/dhcp/dhclient.conf].

Thank you very much for setting this straight for me.

Best,

A.