Route10 - 1.4g firmware breaks custom DNS

I was able to set custom WAN DNS just fine on 1.4f firmware, however, on 1.4g it forces itself to use Google or Cisco DNS.

uci get network.wan.dns - Show’s correct DNS as entered, for me, NextDNS.

however, all my devices still use Cisco or Google.

After some investigating, the https dns proxy service is overriding my set DNS.

If i run /etc/init.d/https-dns-proxy stop - this fixes the issue until next reboot

I have spoken to three other R10 users on 1.4g - 2 out of 3 can replicate this issue.

2 Likes

Can confirm I can replicate this issue, typing in that command seems to fix it.

As per discord going to share this here for others:

Also in the script is the fix for your sticky WAN :slight_smile:

/cfg/post-cfg.sh

#!/bin/sh

echo "Running post-cfg.sh at $(date)" >> /tmp/debug.log

# Remove all https-dns-proxy instances
echo "Removing all https-dns-proxy instances..." >> /tmp/debug.log
while uci -q get https-dns-proxy.@https-dns-proxy[0]; do
    uci delete https-dns-proxy.@https-dns-proxy[0]
done
uci commit https-dns-proxy

# Stop and disable the service
/etc/init.d/https-dns-proxy stop
/etc/init.d/https-dns-proxy disable
echo "https-dns-proxy disabled and wiped" >> /tmp/debug.log

# Set mwan3 sticky to 0
echo "Setting mwan3 sticky to 0..." >> /tmp/debug.log
uci set mwan3.default_pbr.sticky=0
uci commit
/etc/init.d/mwan3 restart

echo "post-cfg.sh finished at $(date)" >> /tmp/debug.log

also make sure the /cfg/post-cfg.sh is executable (chmod +x /cfg/post-cfg.sh)

Not sure if deleting the dns proxy is going to cause any issues but Alta guys can confirm

3 Likes

Cheers lobster legs, i owe you one! Cheers again for finding the dns root cause, script works perfectly

I TOLD YOU MY BURNT LEGS ARE FINE NOW thank you very much

1 Like

season 1 episode 10 GIF by SpongeBob SquarePants

1 Like

Nice fix.

I bet Mr midget man is buzzing now haha.

1 Like

Nice! Going to tuck this away to do some testing for later.

Also, didn’t realize there’s an Alta discord floating around out there either…

I’m sorry to be that guy but how on EARTH was this missed in testing. This firmware took a long time to release.

This was a DM as I know @LosSantosPro and @Sickyman_678

Hope the commands help :slight_smile:

I’m not entirely sure tbh, bit unfortunate

Oh, fair enough lol

Thanks!

1 Like

I think it’s a fair question!

Thinking back on it, I think I actually noticed this behavior while I was running the release candidate that was being offered although I brushed it off at the time due to other priorities and the fact it wasn’t causing any problems per se.

But I suppose that underscores the potential usefulness of community beta program or early adopter ring to help catch behavior like this before broad deployment.

Whats the discord link?