[dsc] local_address problem in dsc configuration

[Thib D]

Sorry for the bad formatting :

Here is the config



local_address 10.254.10.1
local_address 10.254.20.1

run_dir "/var/lib/dsc/run/dsc-1/";
pid_file "/run/dsc-1.pid";

interface eth0;

dataset qtotal dns All:null Count:null queries-only;
dataset qname_qtype dns Qname:qname Qtype:qtype queries-only;

output_format JSON;



2018-03-01 14:58 GMT+01:00 Thib D <thibmac0241 at gmail.com>:

> Hi dsc !
>
> We recently caught a problem on our current preproduction dsc
> configuration.
>
> We are using two processes both using two different conf files to capture
> the stats depending on which local_adress the request is targeted to..
>
> Lets say dsc-1 is listening on *10.254.10.1* and *10.254.20.1* and dsc-2
> is listening on *10.254.10.2* and *10.254.20.2. *All of these interfaces
> are on the loopback interface. However, trafic is coming in from eth0, but
> the request are targeted to these loopback address (which are our dns
> nameservers IP).
>
> The conf looks like this (example for dsc-1.conf)
>
> local_address 10.254.10.1
>> local_address 10.254.20.1
>
>
>
> run_dir "/var/lib/dsc/run/dsc-1/";
>> pid_file "/run/dsc-1.pid";
>>
>
>
> interface eth0;
>>
>
>
> dataset qtotal dns All:null Count:null queries-only;
>> dataset qname_qtype dns Qname:qname Qtype:qtype queries-only;
>>
>
>
> output_format JSON;
>
>
> So now that the processes are running, the JSON reports
> in /var/lib/dsc/run/dsc-1/ should only show statistics for the traffic
> targeting *10.254.10.1* and *10.254.20.1 *right ?
>
> Actually, the JSON reports for dsc-1 and dsc-2 are exactly the same :
>
>    - dsc-1 reports show traffic that was intended for all of the 4
>    loopback addresses instead of only  10.254.10.1 and 10.254.20.1
>    - dsc-2 shows the same.
>
> If I do this : dig @10.254.10.*1* test.com A, the result will be shown in
> every report.
>
> There is probably a way to fix this but it looks like our configuration
> could be wrong at the moment. Does the "interface" parameter have an higher
> priority than local address or something ?  Any tips ?
>
> Thanks.
>