[Dnsmasq-discuss] No DHCPOffer back but DHCPDiscover is being received by UML machine

[Josh H]

>
>
> Oops. The simple setup doesn't work.
> In case there are two UML VMs that "see each other" through
> the vHub, feel free to share that config with us.


It's difficult for me to share the config outright as I'm using a modified
version of netkit that I've updated to a much newer kernel -
http://netkit-ng.github.io/. The netkit version that is available on that
link is the one that worked with dnsmasq just fine, and that version was
2.62 and kernel 3.2. However I've updated it and am running 2.80 and kernel
5.6.

Anything else I can provide you with that might help? It's a very unique
setup so I appreciate  it's probably not the easiest thing to try and
debug.

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 19:17, Geert Stappers <stappers at stappers.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:03:13PM +0100, Josh H wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 16:56, <wkitty42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > what about nftables if you are using a recent version of linux? many
> seem
> > > to be moving to nftables from iptables...
> > > https://linuxhandbook.com/iptables-vs-nftables/
> >
> >
> > Running the command "nft list ruleset" gives me no output,
> > so I assume no rules have been setup.
>
> Yes, that makes sense.
>
>
> Josh H  wrote in another message:
> (
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2020q2/013988.html
> )
>
> > I'm running a very odd environment in that I'm using 2 usermodelinux
> > virtual machines connected via a virtual hub.
>
> Seems to me something that should work.
>
> However I have no exprience with UML
>
>
>
> > I've got such a simple
> > setup because originally I had a much larger configuration and wanted
> > to test it wasn't something messed up in routing and such.
>
> Oops. The simple setup doesn't work.
>
> In case there are two UML VMs that "see each other" through
> the vHub, feel free to share that config with us.
>
>
> > Just wanted to add that dnsmasq 2.62 with a much older Linux kernel
> > (3.2 from memory?) worked on this sort of setup perfectly fine, so
> > it seems thats either the kernel update or a newer version of dnsmasq
> > has broken something along the way.
>
> I don't understand, but yes indeed
>  Kernel, libc and dnsmasq  should be alined.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps, otherwise read the message as "posting is been seen"
>
>
> Regards
> Geert Stappers
> --
> Silence is hard to parse
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20200415/84db6166/attachment.html>