Hi, thanks for the detailed analysis, indeed the wrong string comparison seems to be the case, as Java's InetAddress expands the IPv6 by default. It went unnoticed for so long because the problem only applies to IPv6 as IPv4 addresses are by default expanded.
Verified on - rhvm-4.5.0-0.237.el8ev.noarch with vdsm-4.50.0.10-1.el8ev.x86_64
Just a little more info from this customer: "Making the change in the GUI is not possible as it only provides 3 fields for 3 DNS IP's. On a separate note, I now have 2 RHV Hosts in the Cluster and I am now adding a 3rd one. I am using the new method of dropping the ovirtmgmt network and recreating it as we previously did. In this case, I have done those steps and the server continuously fails adding it to the cluster." What is the current expectation prior to the release of a bug fix to implement changes to DNS servers when there are more than 3 fields needed, and what is the current workaround for adding the networking so that the RHV host can be added?
(In reply to Robert McSwain from comment #10) > Just a little more info from this customer: > > "Making the change in the GUI is not possible as it only provides 3 fields > for 3 DNS IP's. > > On a separate note, I now have 2 RHV Hosts in the Cluster and I am now > adding a 3rd one. I am using the new method of dropping the ovirtmgmt > network and recreating it as we previously did. In this case, I have done > those steps and the server continuously fails adding it to the cluster." > > What is the current expectation prior to the release of a bug fix to > implement changes to DNS servers when there are more than 3 fields needed, > and what is the current workaround for adding the networking so that the RHV > host can be added? Hi, sorry for the delay. If they need more than 3 DNS records they will probably need to configure it manually via nmstate, however this flow is not officially supported and any change to the host networking or reboot might revert it back. Truth be told I don't think there is a really a point in having more than 3 DNS. The customer should probably consider why do they need it or if they can deploy an instance of dnsmasq that will hold all the DNS that they need. For the workaround, only one that I can think of is deploying the host via IPv4 and changing it later on if possible.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory (Moderate: RHV Manager (ovirt-engine) [ovirt-4.5.0] security update), and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2022:4711