[Dnsmasq-discuss] address=/#/192.168.0.1 - does not work!
nikitan at operamail.com
Mon Dec 9 12:42:52 GMT 2013
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
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?
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?
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss