On 20/10/15 21:35, Simon Kelley wrote: > To add to the list of canonical uses for dnsmasq: DHCP and DNS services > to VMs and containers in things like OpenStack. These typically use > RFC1918 addresses (there's no point in being able to spin a new VM in > seconds if you have to go buy it a real IPv4 address on the black market > first.....) so that's another argument against. > > I think that the "principle of least surprise" would stop me from > _changing_ the default, even if I was convinced that the current choice > is the wrong one. It's much too late to change. > > Actually, this isn't something that the code author needs to decide: > Vanishingly few people install dnsmasq from source. It's a choice for > the packager. That doesn't get me off the hook, since I package dnsmasq > for Debian (and therefore Ubuntu, too). I note, for instance that > > --local-service > > defaults OFF in the dnsmasq code, but is defaulted ON in new Debian > installations until explicitly turned off. The same could apply to > bogus-priv. > > Of course that means the Kevin has far more people who he needs to > convince to act........ > I think I've had it very well explained that my viewpoint is very narrow :-) And what's the saying about choosing battles wisely? Not this battle. I did say controversial...and apparently only 50% silly this time.
Ideally those cheap, low margin home router manufacturers will remember to put '--bogus-priv' in their configs. Kevin
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
