Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Internet DNS name resolution lost after LTSP-PNP config on Lubuntu 13.04 Raring

[John H. <lt...@pr...>]

On 7/23/2013 3:34 PM, John Hupp wrote:
> On 7/21/2013 4:17 PM, John Hupp wrote:
>> I've just done a fresh full installation of Lubuntu 13.04 Raring, and
>> immediately after completing the LTSP-PNP configuration procedure I lost
>> Internet name resolution on both the LTSP server and clients.  Pinging
>> an Internet server IP address works fine.
>>
>> I ran into the same problem on 12.04 Quantal but didn't have time to
>> troubleshoot it.
>>
>> Does anyone recognize the problem or have suggestions on how to
>> troubleshoot this?  (And because I remembered running into the same
>> problem on Quantal, this time I made a Clonezilla disk image just before
>> setting up LTSP, so if need be I should be able to back up to that point.)
>>
>> --John
> I started troubleshooting by restoring the backup image and then testing
> web browsing after each step of the LTSP-PNP setup.
>
> I found that "ltsp-config dnsmasq" is the command that causes the
> problem.  It creates /etc/dnsmasq.d/ltsp-server-dnsmasq.conf and then
> restarts the DNS forwarder and DHCP server.  Immediately after that I
> can no longer browse the web.  But if I move that file elsewhere and
> reboot, I can browse the web once again.
>
> OK, that's the easy part.  Does anyone know how I can make this work?
>

OK, I have arrived at something that works, but I'd like to hear 
confirmation that this is the best way to fix this.

The default ltsp-server-dnsmasq.conf produced by the "ltsp-config 
dnsmasq" setup command includes the line "port=0," which disables the 
DNS server functionality of dnsmasq.  But starting with Ubuntu 12.04, 
DNS is provided by dnsmasq in the default network setup.

So I regained functioning DNS on the server and clients by commenting 
out "port=0."

The LTSP-PNP setup instructions at 
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuLTSP/ltsp-pnp may make some 
oblique reference to this sort of problem under "DNS Issues," but that 
is explicitly applied to fat clients, and I have thin clients here.  So 
it seems to me that the instructions should be edited to address this.