[Dnsmasq-discuss] address=/#/192.168.0.1 - does not work!

[Nikita N.]

OH my god! :)) I see now you are not the author of dnsmasq.. I see the
author id Simon Kelley.. apologies, I thought I was talking  with the
author :)
Of course you dont have to debug that issue! :D
No, really, im pretty sure of what I saw in wireshark traces, even
because I spent few hours in testing dnsmasq, and it really didnt work
as I expected..
Mostly the DNS feature half-hour-delayed disappointed me enough..
So my question is directed to the author of dnsmasq - I still dont know,
can I use dnsmasq for my needs? or im just wasting time?
Thanks :) 


On Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 04:14 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 09/12/2013 12:26, Nikita N. a écrit :
> > Hi Albert :) I see you want a complete log/trace session for your
> > debugging, isnt it? :)
> 
> *My* debugging? No. I don't intend to debu your issue, only have a look 
> at it and see if, as a user of dnsmasq to another, I can help *you* 
> debugging. :)
> 
> Also, I don't think a complete log/trace is needed. Only DHCP packets 
> are useful, and only from the request or discovery packet to the ack 
> packet (or clear lack thereof).
> 
> > Well I didnt think to prepare that, I was thinking you could give me
> > some more easy answer..
> 
> Rule number one of problem solving: you cannot solve a problem if you do 
> not know what the problem is. Since your problem is a missing packet in 
> a DHCP exchange, the first thing I'd do is to have a look at the exact 
> DHCP messages sent and received by the DHCP client and server, as seen 
> by either machine. I would also suggest logging ARP packets.
> 
> > First of all I would like to know, is my config file correct?
> > With such config file, am I supposed to get what I want?
> > Because, if my usage is correct and the config file is correct, then its
> > some kind of bug, and so I can prepare you some traces, if you really
> > need..
> 
> Well, I did not look at the config file because you mentioned that your 
> use scenario works in case the DHCP discover packet is sent first, which 
> means the interfaces, the ranges, the leases are basically ok; and that, 
> as far as I know, there is no way to configure dnsmasq so that it 
> answers differently depending on there being a discover message or not.
> 
> > Honestly, since dnsmasq didnt work, in fact I dropped dnsmasq..
> > I tested with "dhcpd" for the DHCP support, and with "dnsspoof" for the
> > DNS, and all works great.
> > But as you know, dhcpd is very heavy app, king of too exaggerate for my
> > needs, and dnsspoof is a dirty hack tool..
> > So was hoping in dnsmasq for a clean,small, all-in-one solution.. but
> > maybe Im wrong..?
> 
> We can only know by investigating. Apart from logging the issues you 
> meett, you could also perform some tests if you have another machine 
> which can connect to the server through Ethernet. This would help 
> discriminate between a server- or client-related issue and a network 
> equipment-related issue.
> 
> Also: could you avoid top-posting?
> 
> Amicalement,
> -- 
> Albert.

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be