[Dnsmasq-discuss] RFE: improve dnsmasq survivability and resilience

[Simon Kelley]

On 04/11/12 15:33, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> On 11/04/2012 08:29 AM, simon at thekelleys.org.uk wrote:

>>
>> Does the dnsmasq configuration include --bind-interfaces? If so I think
>> the solution is already present in 2.63 and above. Replace
>> bind-interfaces
>> with --bind-dynamic.
> Yes, this might be the answer.
>
> First of all, this has nothing to do with libvirt but, instead, runs on
> real hardware.  I am not sure I need bind-anything because to chance of
> needing to run more than on instance is between zero and none.
>
> I was using interface= and no listen-address= when I first noticed the
> failure at boot time.  I tried changing to using listen-address= and no
> interface= definitions but it made no difference.  I do want to limit
> things so that only networks on specific interfaces or only specific
> networks will be handled.
>
> One advantage I see of specifying interface= is that if a new network
> appears on an interface (lets say that an interface with only an IPv4
> definition had an IPv6 definition added) that no change would be necessary.
>
> With respect to bind-interfaces and bind-dynamic, which type (interface=
> or listen-address=) is beter?

It makes little difference. interface= does break if the interface 
address is changed.
>
> Given what I stated above, should I remove the bind-interface? Would
> that make dnsmasq be able to cope with an non-initialized interface?
>

You should, and yes it will: you'll get a warning about the non-existent 
interface instead of an error.


Cheers,

Simon.

> Gene
>