Simon Kelley (si...@thekelleys.org.uk) (Emailias: REPLY-MASKED) wrote:
Original Sender: <si...@thekelleys.org.uk>
Given To: lists.thekelleys.org.uk: Dnsmasq-discuss Info Page
http://www.emailias.com/mailclick/?id=243457
<--------------------end emailias header-------------------->
L Forrister wrote:
Simon Kelley (si...@thekelleys.org.uk) (Emailias: REPLY-MASKED) wrote:
Original Sender: <dnsmasq-discuss-boun...@lists.thekelleys.org.uk>
Given To: lists.thekelleys.org.uk: Dnsmasq-discuss Info Page
http://www.emailias.com/mailclick/?id=243457
<--------------------end emailias header-------------------->
I have support for multiple domains working, but I've come across a
wrinkle.
Consider the case that two different DHCP clients claim the same name.
With the existing code, only one can have it and the current behaviour
is that when a second machine claims a name, the first one loses it.
Now, consider the possibility that the two machines claiming the same
name are in different domains. By default, the existing behaviour must
continue, because the unqualified name is added to the DNS, so that
even
though the two clients could have "name.domain1.com" and
"name.domain2.com", they are still fighting over just plain "name".
It would be possible to introduce a new mode, which didn't put the
unqualified name into the DNS, and allowed both hosts to keep their
name
as long as they are in different domains. Would that be useful, or just
an confusing complication?
I don't see anything confusing about it. What good is multiple domain
support if you're forced to maintain unique host names across all
domains.
I've never quite understood why dnsmasq can't allow the duplicate names
in the first place. Why must it be so. Consider a client machine
with two interfaces. Both dhcp. They'll both get leases. Both ip's
will be active. But the dns will only return one (name and ip)
depending on which was most recently renewed. But its not just the
dns, because when you check the leases file there's only one lease
listed.
The reason is simply that there's no way to differentiate the "plain"
unqualified versions of the name, without the domain part. To make the
multiple names work would mean suppressing unqualified names. For most
people, having them is more usefull that having multiple domains.
Cheers,
Simon.
As far the leases file is concerned, doesn't the mac address (and/or the
client id) provide that differentiation? I mean, having the same
unqualified host name on two separate leases would not cause identical
lines/records in the lease file.
The dns code, seems not to have a problem with multihomed hosts in
either /etc/hosts or /etc/dnsmasq.hosts (my dnsmasq addn-hosts file.)
oso:~
lf$ dig +short -x 192.168.160.67 -x 192.168.160.68 -x 192.168.160.69
alkix.rebel.lan.
alkix.rebel.lan.
alkix.rebel.lan.
oso:~
lf$ dig +short alkix.rebel.lan
192.168.160.67
192.168.160.68
192.168.160.69
~~L.Forrister
