[Dnsmasq-discuss] interface-name and IPv6 temporary addresses

Michael Gorbach michael at mgorbach.name
Thu Dec 18 16:08:08 GMT 2014


Just compiled and tested. Looking good! It’s returning only the correct (global) address for forward queries, and returning temporary addresses for reverse queries. Thanks for the fix, Simon!

Yours,
~ M.

> On Dec 17, 2014, at 7:43 AM, Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> I just pushed changes to the git repo to implement this. Michael,
> please could you seen if it now behaves as you'd like?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Simon.
> 
> 
> On 01/12/14 18:49, Michael Gorbach wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Simon Kelley
>> <simon at thekelleys.org.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 29/11/14 19:18, Michael Gorbach wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>> I've got a question and potential enhancement request. It looks
>>>> like right now, the (very useful) interface-name feature pulls
>>>> all (global) addresses from the interface. One of my machines
>>>> uses IPv6 privacy extensions (known in Linux as use_tempaddr),
>>>> which means that in addition to link-local and permanent global
>>>> addresses, it has a rotating cast of ~ 5 temporary addresses. I
>>>> suggest that dnsmasq should detect those temporary addresses
>>>> and not return them for queries that would otherwise hit
>>>> interface-name. Returning them as it does now means > 5 AAAA
>>>> records for a single name, which causes repeated confusion due
>>>> to things like SSH warning about an unknown host because it has
>>>> suddenly picked a previously-unknown temporary address to
>>>> connect to. Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sounds like a sensible suggestion. This facility was added before
>>> I was really familiar with IPv6 and all its extra complications.
>>> Most of those 5 temporary addresses will be "deprecated" ie
>>> hanging around for the use of existing connections, but not used
>>> for new ones. They definitely shouldn't appear, but I'm pretty
>>> convinced, unless anyone can come up with a good reason why not,
>>> that all privacy addresses should be elided, without exception.
>>> 
>>> I wonder, though, if that's only true for forward (ie AAAA)
>>> lookups. Should a reverse lookup on an old privacy address still
>>> yield the name of the host it belongs to?
>> 
>> Thanks, Simon. I’d agree that all the temporary addresses should be
>> skipped in forward resolution. In terms of reverse, I’d say there’s
>> a high amount of value in having at least the current temporary
>> address resolve to the correct host name. Temporary addresses are
>> often preferred for outbound connections, so if we don’t have
>> reverse resolution here then for example SSH is going to complain
>> that it can’t check reverse DNS. There’s probably some value in
>> reverse resolution for deprecated temporary addresses, for example
>> if you wanted to track down some client in your system logs from
>> several days ago, but it’s significantly lower. If that’s a large
>> amount of work, to me it’s something that wouldn’t be
>> top-priority.
>> 
>> Yours, ~ M.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Simon.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss
>>> mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>>> <mailto:Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk> 
>>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>>> <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> 
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUkXqGAAoJEBXN2mrhkTWiXWgQAKGoEO3e90O1vYXoXrO1x2FB
> 9yC/jow4juxmtNoLVwZ7vLwTyvCSG9kpUDhDh6Rn2x674iXbOa8HpU6wAWSOdL6o
> HRPYmutJk9cO6Pq6mQrzK02afDEfLwpRVazIgIznuq3LmjIV4oEACQItItXsbRxE
> e6VTfO/MbXlKSvuShPreTotLPInpd1+crj4iNWPpAZzby+H3lLcHc2+VtUF1Tkou
> pkK1WHDYLK1aqn2xgao8/d3YF6JQmQMD6D9wo+jYF0FYerP0zPDsnaC2alt/RIrq
> R1o6kfcpAv6yY6PWbA3WLYUFn0j9q9Qv95jGWWmlsU0GiuvNZTPQ1RAXrdLbv2WM
> UeEU6HErEtwimnws6aG5Ou5ig3kWHaKdk+Cl1p3XAHHrPAmBU6ut7zm7s/kpbdgT
> /kR03mHf8+34aRWhyPCDVOghQQxmFWB6Dep3LxRjouZvdxke1Pht/FHA98GeqgdU
> eEhO3ySRNJqD+H8tSr+WRUfWfSN8d/eWiE9A/jeLhvhQOzC/d63I9mHZQUsdVE/W
> weqk4fVavTkvhNon8tXpqT8yggsD8S/m/KhCj691tY3he78iEM9u7WCFas3UC7fa
> R6avOGiKdq6aBbLAT0bBTRe/pdZGvk7zUMaO84Wd1aFT/UVpQ3/FAq8Ec8RZStLm
> oFi+BU4Vh5ZGcn9DKgol
> =civ9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4145 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20141218/5f2a833e/attachment.bin>


More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list