[Dnsmasq-discuss] Dnsmasq-discuss Digest, Vol 90, Issue 12
Eldon Ziegler
eldonz at atlanticdb.com
Tue Nov 13 12:46:57 GMT 2012
Re: Setting netmask via /etc/ethers
In our case, subnets are defined dynamically and we already
use /etc/ethers to set IP addresses. I suppose the alternative would be
something like rewriting a --conf-file with the current subnet
definitions. However, dnsmasq doesn't reread these files on a SIGHUP so
it seems like it would have to be restarted. Is restarting dnsmasq
fairly often a good idea?
Best,
Eldon
On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 12:00 +0000,
dnsmasq-discuss-request at lists.thekelleys.org.uk wrote:
> Send Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list submissions to
> dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> dnsmasq-discuss-request at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> dnsmasq-discuss-owner at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Dnsmasq-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Setting netmask via /etc/ethers (Simon Kelley)
> 2. Re: dnsmasq for road warriors (Ed W)
> 3. Re: dnsmasq for road warriors (Ed W)
> 4. Re: dnsmasq for road warriors (richardvoigt at gmail.com)
> 5. ff02:1:2 not being brought up (Jeff Ferland)
> 6. Re: dnsmasq for road warriors (sam at sltosis.org)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:19:17 +0000
> From: Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk>
> To: dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Setting netmask via /etc/ethers
> Message-ID: <50A11375.5030701 at thekelleys.org.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 11/11/12 11:26, Eldon Ziegler wrote:
> > We use /etc/ethers to set IP addresses dynamically. Is there a way to
> > set the netmask along with the IP address? If not, I would like to
> > request an upgrade.
> >
>
> Hmm, netmask is a per-subnet parameter, rather than a per-host one. It
> doesn't normally make sense to set it differently for different host on
> the network, so /etc/ethers is not a good place to put it.
>
> The subnet _is_ controlled by DHCP, and dnsmasq normally decides it
> automatically (it uses the netmask on the local interface that dnsmasq
> to talk to the subnet, basically) but you can override it with extra
> arguments to dhcp-range if you need to.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:40:26 +0000
> From: Ed W <lists at wildgooses.com>
> To: dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq for road warriors
> Message-ID: <50A150AA.6000706 at wildgooses.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 11/11/2012 23:05, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 08:34:38PM +0000, Ed W wrote:
> >> Try:
> >> http://roy.marples.name/projects/openresolv
> > Eww, no. That's a kludge, and again, it totally misses the point of
> > this dnsmasq instance exclusively providing DNS to local processes.
> > This was brought to the dnsmasq mailing list for a reason: I am
> > indeed using dnsmasq.
> >
>
> I think you need to look more closely
>
> It's a complete environment, including hooks, for tracking resolv.conf
> entries per connection. It then dynamically merges them and handles
> interfaces arriving/leaving.
>
> It comes complete with dnsmasq integration and uses dbus to indicate changes
>
> Basically, it's all the hooks you were about to write...
>
>
> Note, I would also commend dhcpcd by the same author. It's a full
> featured dhcp client which can pretty much replace almost all your
> networking scripts and dynamically bring up and configure every
> interface on your system (and I mean really properly everything... It's
> brought up a couple of firewire interfaces on my box that I didn't even
> realise were there...). Very pluggable and capable of being used in a
> much less capable way, but do also consider it as your one stop shop for
> configuring the entire networking stack...
>
>
> Good luck
>
> Ed W
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:44:16 +0000
> From: Ed W <lists at wildgooses.com>
> To: dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq for road warriors
> Message-ID: <50A15190.3030301 at wildgooses.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 11/11/2012 23:05, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
> >> Nothing wrong with dhcp hooks. Setup things as advanced as you
> >> need. Dnsmasq regularly sends *all* requests to *all* nameservers
> >> and picks the fastest responding. So it will choose a faster
> >> responding server where there are several options
> > This goes against what the manual says. See "--all-servers" in the
> > man page. What you describe is only applicable when "--all-servers"
> > was specified. I don't think I would want that.
>
> I would be surprised if you aren't best served by --all-servers (which I
> think is the default?)
>
> Work it back and ensure that you only have the correct nameservers in
> place at any given moment, after that your choice should come down to
> "fastest response please"?
>
> Ed W
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:11:43 -0600
> From: "richardvoigt at gmail.com" <richardvoigt at gmail.com>
> To: dnsmasq discussion list <dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq for road warriors
> Message-ID:
> <CAO_2OxVz23OedqVYLAgvLqDOMT8rhawsdNuNGBfodQX4mcbuKg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM, /dev/rob0 <rob0 at gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 10/11/2012 15:54, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > > >Seems to me that dnsmasq is a better nscd replacement, and
> > > >it has a place in mobile computing.
> > > >
> > > ># we use this dnsmasq as this system's own resolver
> > > >no-resolv
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:46:10PM -0600,
> > richardvoigt at gmail.com wrote:
> > > no-resolv is doing more harm than good.
> > >
> > > dnsmasq is smart enough to ignore 127.0.0.1 in /etc/resolv.conf
> > > And it will automatically pick up DHCP-assigned DNS servers which
> > > written there.
> >
> > But you don't understand. The point of dnsmasq on a laptop is to
> > serve ONLY that machine and its local processes. /etc/resolv.conf
> > must contain ONLY "nameserver 127.0.0.1". If there are other
> > nameservers listed, the system resolver will be contacting them;
> > possibly getting different results, and ... well, this discussion
> > would not be relevant to the dnsmasq list.
> >
> >
> I don't know where you got this piece of misinformation. Multiple
> nameserver entries in /etc/resolv.conf work fine, as long as the localhost
> entry (pointing to dnsmasq) comes first.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20121112/989efdbb/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:31:21 -0800
> From: Jeff Ferland <jeff at nimbula.com>
> To: dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Subject: [Dnsmasq-discuss] ff02:1:2 not being brought up
> Message-ID: <367F73DC-6D97-48AA-888F-86C5A55DEE7D at nimbula.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> The following command doesn't seem to bring up the ff02:1:2 address to respond to requests. Router advertisements are sent, but no client or ping requests are acknowledged.
>
> Any thoughts or minimum configuration options that I'm missing?
>
> sudo dnsmasq -F 2000:3000:4000:abc::,slaac -d -p 0 -O option6:dns-server,2001:4860:4860::8888
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:13:07 +0100
> From: sam at sltosis.org
> To: "richardvoigt at gmail.com" <richardvoigt at gmail.com>
> Cc: dnsmasq discussion list <dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq for road warriors
> Message-ID: <20121113111306.GA3002 at sproxy>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 06:11:43PM -0600, richardvoigt at gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM, /dev/rob0 <rob0 at gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 10/11/2012 15:54, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > > > >Seems to me that dnsmasq is a better nscd replacement, and
> > > > >it has a place in mobile computing.
> > > > >
> > > > ># we use this dnsmasq as this system's own resolver
> > > > >no-resolv
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:46:10PM -0600,
> > > richardvoigt at gmail.com wrote:
> > > > no-resolv is doing more harm than good.
> > > >
> > > > dnsmasq is smart enough to ignore 127.0.0.1 in /etc/resolv.conf
> > > > And it will automatically pick up DHCP-assigned DNS servers which
> > > > written there.
> > >
> > > But you don't understand. The point of dnsmasq on a laptop is to
> > > serve ONLY that machine and its local processes. /etc/resolv.conf
> > > must contain ONLY "nameserver 127.0.0.1". If there are other
> > > nameservers listed, the system resolver will be contacting them;
> > > possibly getting different results, and ... well, this discussion
> > > would not be relevant to the dnsmasq list.
> > >
> > >
> > I don't know where you got this piece of misinformation. Multiple
> > nameserver entries in /etc/resolv.conf work fine, as long as the localhost
> > entry (pointing to dnsmasq) comes first.
>
> It will work fine, but the system resolver might end up querying an nameserver
> other than dnsmasq(localhost) which is exactly, if I understood correctly,
> what /dev/rob0 wants to avoid.
>
>
>
> That said, dnsmasq will poll your alternate resolv.conf for change automatically,
> unless requested otherwise (--no-poll), so I see no need to restart it after a
> change.
>
> This is actually what I was doing* on my laptop, a custom dhcp client hook will
> fill an alternate resolv.conf file : /etc/resolv.conf-dnsmasq (used by dnsmasq),
> and ensure /etc/resolv.conf only contains the localhost nameserver with optionnal
> supplementary parameters (search,...)
>
> This is obviously usefull for dnsmasq cache and other features (eg: server=//), but
> also for some services/daemons which don't poll /etc/resolv.conf for change on
> their own(eg: postfix)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>
>
> End of Dnsmasq-discuss Digest, Vol 90, Issue 12
> ***********************************************
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss
mailing list