[Dnsmasq-discuss] DNS64 support.

[Scott Nicholas]

Experimentation. I would like to try a machine or two with only ipv6,
and since dnsmasq is already bound to 53, it'll have to do. :)

It is a simple function. If a single AAAA is requested and the reply
has 0 answers, forward a modified query for an A. Then, convert the A
to AAAA by adding prefix 64:FF9B::

This may not fit dnsmasq now, or need to officially be included, but
if the IPv6 ever catches on, this method has my vote.

I guess a more complete BIND server could run on my router, but I have
not yet gave up on repurposing the one I am using now. :)

--
Scott

On 2/11/11, Bill C Riemers <briemers at redhat.com> wrote:
> Really, you only need DNS64/NAT64 if you want to completely eliminate IPv4
> in your network.   With a dual stack, e.g. using both, it is completely
> unnecessary.   I would say if you do need them, they are completely
> different functions than what DNSMASQ provide.   As such, they should be
> just completely different code.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On 02/11/2011 11:20 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> Scott Nicholas wrote:
>>> Experimenting at home with IPv6... Would like to try DNS64/NAT64 and
>>> dnsmasq is the logical choice to continue my DNS needs since it's
>>> already used on my OpenWRT home routers.
>>>
>>> I read over some code a bit before bed, and believe I should have a
>>> hack together in 2-3 days time that covers just the "Well Known
>>> Prefix" (currently 64:FF9B::/96) with constant RDATA for PTRs. I
>>> believe this to be the setup most likely for home routers. Then it's
>>> simply a single command-line switch to enable DNS64 behavior or not.
>>> No worries about other prefixes for me at this point.
>>>
>>> Tho before proceeding, was there any other work done with this by
>>> anyone? Shouldn't take much I think to implement _after_ I learn at
>>> least how a few things are working.. Looking to throw some ideas
>>> around. I'm more a hacker/tinkerer than a programmer but I've a draft
>>> to follow so it shouldn't be too whack ;)
>>>
>>>
>> There was a brief conversation about this subject here:
>>
>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2010q4/004635.html
>>
>> The conclusion seems to be that it's a red-herring for dnsmasq, is that
>> right? (I don't know anything about DNS64 and have no opinion).
>>
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>