[Dnsmasq-discuss] strange warn message

[Simon Kelley]

On 18/08/12 07:26, e9hack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've a configuration where the host file contains two ipv6 entries for a host (self
> created ipv6 from ULA prefix and a DHCP ipv6):
>
> 192.168.25:2 vbox
> fdaa:aaaa:aaaa:aaaa:bbbb:bbbb:bbbb:bbbb vbox
> fec0:0:0:ffff::ffff:2 vbox
> ...
>
> The configuration file contains the DHCPv6 entry also:
>
> local=/lan/
> domain=lan
> dhcp-range=192.168.25.100,192.168.25.150,48h
> dhcp-host=aa:aa:aa:bb:bb:bb,vbox,192.168.25.2
> dhcp-range=fec0:0:0:ffff::ffff:100,fec0:0:0:ffff::ffff:ffff,48h
> dhcp-host=id:cc:cc:cc:cc:cc:cc:cc:cc:cc:cc:cc:cc:cc:cc,vbox,[fec0:0:0:ffff::ffff:2]
> ...
>
> All the time, where a PC ask for a lease, I get the following entry in the log:
>
> Aug 18 08:05:27 WLAN daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp[27370]: DHCPDISCOVER(br0) dd:dd:dd:dd:dd:dd
> Aug 18 08:05:27 WLAN daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp[27370]: DHCPOFFER(br0) 192.168.25.6
> dd:dd:dd:dd:dd:dd
> Aug 18 08:05:27 WLAN daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp[27370]: DHCPREQUEST(br0) 192.168.25.6
> dd:dd:dd:dd:dd:dd
> Aug 18 08:05:27 WLAN daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp[27370]: DHCPACK(br0) 192.168.25.6
> dd:dd:dd:dd:dd:dd vdr
> Aug 18 08:05:27 WLAN daemon.warn dnsmasq-dhcp[27370]: not giving name vbox.lan to the DHCP
> lease of fec0::ffff:0:0:ffff:2 because the name exists in /var/hosts with address
> fdaa:aaaa:aaaa:aaaa:bbbb:bbbb:bbbb:bbbb
> Aug 18 08:05:27 WLAN daemon.warn dnsmasq-dhcp[27370]: not giving name vbox to the DHCP
> lease of fec0::ffff:0:0:ffff:2 because the name exists in /var/hosts with address
> fdaa:aaaa:aaaa:aaaa:bbbb:bbbb:bbbb:bbbb
>
> dnsmasq complains about all hosts with more than one ipv6 address in the host file. The
> error message is shown for all DHCP queries from different PC's. dnsmasq gives the PC vbox
> the correct ipv6 address over DHCP.
>
> C:\Users\zz>nslookup vbox
> Server:  WLAN.lan
> Address:  192.168.25.1
>
> Name:    vbox.lan
> Addresses:  fdaa:aaaa:aaaa:aaaa:bbbb:bbbb:bbbb:bbbb
>            fec0::ffff:0:0:ffff:2
>            192.168.25.2
>

It's possible that the check doesn't take into account the case where a 
hostname has more than one address in /etc/hosts. I'll take a look at 
this when I return from holiday.

Cheers,

Simon.