Comment 27 for bug 1367495

Actually I was thinking this was bug 1240757.

@zukoff-f: your comment #25 would be more appropriate there. That's where we should discuss how to have bind9, dnsmasq, and lxc cooperate.

This bug seems to have evidence from several different causes. yoniyo0's was a bad lxc-usernet file. I'm not sure what Dan Kegel's actually was. I'm going to mark this bug invalid for lxc and not affecting bind9 as I don't know that we can sanely identify the actual original problem..

As for bug 1240757, perhaps our stock bind9 packaging should simply exclude anything begging with 'lxc', or only lxcbr0 (since users may define a lxcbr2 and want bind9 to listen on it)