[Dnsmasq-discuss] gatway

Moritz Warning moritzwarning at web.de
Wed Oct 2 15:11:30 BST 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ok, thanks. :)

On 10/02/2013 04:02 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 02/10/13 14:47, Moritz Warning wrote:
> The gateway in our network isn't always present.
> So it won't be able to announce a prefix all the time.
> Yet, every new computer need to know a prefix
> to communicate with other computers on the network.
> I would assume that this is common scenario.
> 
>> Isn't that what link-local addresses are for?
> 
> 
> Btw., ra-names is not really necessary for us.
> We just want to gives connected computers a
> prefix and at some point in the future the
> address and prefix of the gateway as well.
> router-advertisements/-solicitations are blocked on the network
> except between a computer (client) and the router it is connected to.
> It is a public mesh network. :-)
> 
>> I think the place for further study on this is RFC 3775, "Mobility Support in IPv6". Specifically look at section 7. I don't understand if that fixes the problem you have, but if it does, I'd consider supporting the modifications detailed there, somehow.
> 
> 
>> Cheers,
> 
>> Simon.
> 
> 
> On 10/02/2013 11:44 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
>>>> On 02/10/13 02:57, Moritz Warning wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> is it possible to tell dnsmasq not to announce itself as router?
>>>> The problem is that connected computers try to use the router as gateway.
>>>> The router is not the gateway of the network, but some other computer.
>>>>
>>>> For what it matter, this is the IPv6 setting in my Dnsmasq (version 2.66) configuration:
>>>>
>>>> dhcp-range=public,fdef:1700:bbbb::,ra-names,slaac,64,infinite
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think it is, except by stopping it from advertising prefixes as well, (ie, remove the above line completely). The protocol doesn't (AFAIK) allow prefix advertisements which are not also router advertisements.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It _might_ be possible to do the ra-names functionality whilst leaving router/prefix announcement to another host, it would required code changes and I've not thought hard about if it would work or be desirable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>> Simon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> mwarning
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>>>>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
>>>> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>>>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
> 
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
>> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSTCmSAAoJECHrh56PP4wpRtYH/jyavHsCh+30CeUle8CjvTsy
ZHHXV1ncgvdtIrQU+1Rsf8Y6WaOa70c49wC7XMw6KVdNk/AljYFi4+I/br7w2DSR
DSqCJi5ylBOoJqJfoSu8LvxAKLqklH/AKdsEglo5IoI6gSrOunAgvftSdBGaDGqt
7jCeTa9ZLB8sCp7BHCb6LN5auLP1YFry2DslD/JnpUALlg38zzd2LPB2W0T+mA9/
Up7V8acSrNDMfT0D4h/NaCjkwv4s+NxUxRlo820ZhM7sXS6dLtLkiC2bN79Bhfyq
zbpBvusfmNM0Q7b2Y5xP1EUR2w3hpy6cFL2Jg+XWsIFkEDEtzChUC3JU2/6lR8w=
=TDKj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list