Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] setting up dynamic DNS?
Jan 'RedBully' Seiffert on 10/09/07 23:48, wrote: Adam Hardy wrote: But there is one more niggle: it looks as though dnsmasq on isengard is asking the internet name-server where isengard is when another machine asks it to resolve its hostname. isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[] isengard.localdomain.net from 192.168.0.234 isengard dnsmasq[2716]: forwarded isengard.localdomain.net to 194.74.65.69 isengard dnsmasq[2716]: forwarded isengard.localdomain.net to 194.74.65.69 isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[] isengard.localdomain.net from 192.168.0.234 isengard dnsmasq[2716]: forwarded isengard.localdomain.net to 194.74.65.69 The "problem" is, your client requests the record, or in other words the IPv6 address of isengard, which dnsmasq seems not to know (not in /etc/hosts or somewhere else) Because ... isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[A] isengard.localdomain.net from 192.168.0.234 isengard dnsmasq[2716]: /etc/hosts isengard.localdomain.net is 192.168.0.2 ... when your client asks for the A record, the IPv4 address, it is served directly from /etc/hosts But as said in the last mail, if you want to stop dnsmasq for calling upstream for things which are local, you may add local=/localdomain.net/ to your dnsmasq.conf. Yes you did say that previously but I was unsure about the requirement of the slashes front and back, so I left it unchanged. So I changed the dnsmasq.conf again in this way and now the logging gives me the following: isengard dnsmasq[8120]: reading /etc/resolv.conf isengard dnsmasq[8120]: using nameserver 194.74.65.69#53 isengard dnsmasq[8120]: ignoring nameserver 127.0.0.1 - local interface isengard dnsmasq[8120]: using local addresses only for domain localdomain.net isengard dnsmasq[8120]: query[] pop.1und1.com from 192.168.0.234 isengard dnsmasq[8120]: forwarded pop.1und1.com to 194.74.65.69 isengard dnsmasq[8120]: reply pop.1und1.com is -IPv6 isengard dnsmasq[8120]: query[] pop.1und1.com.localdomain.net from 192.168.0.234 isengard dnsmasq[8120]: config pop.1und1.com.localdomain.net is -IPv6 isengard dnsmasq[8120]: query[A] pop.1und1.com from 192.168.0.234 isengard dnsmasq[8120]: forwarded pop.1und1.com to 194.74.65.69 isengard dnsmasq[8120]: reply pop.1und1.com is 212.227.15.177 isengard dnsmasq[8120]: reply pop.1und1.com is 212.227.15.161 On the eighth line: query[] pop.1und1.com.localdomain.net Is this normal - or another misconfiguration? Why would dnsmasq think it might have the localdomain.net suffix? I can imagine it may be dnsmasq trying out the name with the local domain appended - just in case it may have been an actual simple local hostname without the localdomain.net suffix. Thank you very much for the help by the way - everyone included. Regards Adam
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] setting up dynamic DNS?
Adam Hardy wrote: [snip] > Yes you did say that previously but I was unsure about the requirement > of the slashes front and back, so I left it unchanged. > > So I changed the dnsmasq.conf again in this way and now the logging > gives me the following: > > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: reading /etc/resolv.conf > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: using nameserver 194.74.65.69#53 > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: ignoring nameserver 127.0.0.1 - local interface > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: using local addresses only for domain > localdomain.net > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: query[] pop.1und1.com from 192.168.0.234 > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: forwarded pop.1und1.com to 194.74.65.69 > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: reply pop.1und1.com is -IPv6 client 192.168.0.234 asks for IPv6 1und1.com dnsmasq asks upstream Upstream answer "no ipv6" > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: query[] pop.1und1.com.localdomain.net from > 192.168.0.234 > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: config pop.1und1.com.localdomain.net is > -IPv6 client asks for IPv6 1und1.com.localdomain.net dnsmasq sees from it's config - no > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: query[A] pop.1und1.com from 192.168.0.234 > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: forwarded pop.1und1.com to 194.74.65.69 > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: reply pop.1und1.com is 212.227.15.177 > isengard dnsmasq[8120]: reply pop.1und1.com is 212.227.15.161 > finally the client asks the right questions ;) > On the eighth line: query[] pop.1und1.com.localdomain.net > > Is this normal - or another misconfiguration? I wouldn't call it normal, but it's no misconfiguration *AFAIK*. > Why would dnsmasq think it might have the localdomain.net suffix? No, the client, or its system resolver libraries. Since it is an IPv6 enabled client, it tries IPv6 first. The answer is negativ, so it tries what its /etc/resolv.conf says: "search localdomain.net" On the other hand this way the client makes from "gondor" -> "gondor.localdomain.net". Maybe you can change the order the client tries IPv6 & IPv4. OTOH, ISPs should see more IPv6 queries, so we may finally get IPv6 ;) I would leave it this way, dnsmasq caching abilities and the fact that these queries are made on a local link with almost no latency makes this a "don't worry". > I can imagine it may be dnsmasq > trying out the name with the local domain appended - just in case it may > have been an actual simple local hostname without the localdomain.net > suffix. > Hmmm, that comes into play with the expand-hosts option > Thank you very much for the help by the way - everyone included. > > Regards > Adam > > Grettings Jan -- "...by all means, do not use a hammer." (from an IBM documentation ca. 1920)
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] setting up dynamic DNS?
Adam Hardy wrote : > PS here are the files for reference if they help: > > isengard:~# cat /etc/hosts > 127.0.0.1 localhost > 192.168.0.2 isengard.localdomain.net isengard > # The following lines are desirable for IPv6 capable hosts > ::1 ip6-localhost ip6-loopback > fe00::0 ip6-localnet > ff00::0 ip6-mcastprefix > ff02::1 ip6-allnodes > ff02::2 ip6-allrouters > ff02::3 ip6-allhosts > > isengard:~# cat /etc/resolv.conf > search localdomain.net > nameserver 127.0.0.1 > nameserver 194.74.65.69 > > isengard:~# cat /etc/dnsmasq.conf |grep -v ^# |grep -e ^[[:alnum:]] > domain-needed > bogus-priv > filterwin2k > domain=localdomain.net > dhcp-range=192.168.0.3,192.168.0.254,12h > dhcp-option=1,255.255.255.0 > dhcp-option=3,192.168.0.2 > dhcp-option=6,192.168.0.2 > log-queries 1.) .net is an official TLD. Do not make up nonregistered names in it. Use names that were created for this purpose. See RFC 2606, quoting : To safely satisfy these needs, four domain names are reserved as listed and described below. .test .example .invalid .localhost -end quote- 2.) do not complicate things ! 3.) do not complicate things ! ;-) > domain=localdomain.net as said, use a private address , like domain=test or domain=adam.test do not forget to also change /etc/hosts and resolv.conf > dhcp-range=192.168.0.3,192.168.0.254,12h Do you have a good reason to specify an own lease time (sorry if this was mentioned, I missed it) ? What is wrong with default ? (remember : more options written, more mistakes) > dhcp-option=1,255.255.255.0 > dhcp-option=3,192.168.0.2 > dhcp-option=6,192.168.0.2 dnsmasq does this by default. If you ever change the routers address, you will also have to remember to change this lines. This is an unnecessary source of errors. Delete them Again, I recommend using a Windows client for tests, because : - it works - it is simple When it works, you can go and set up the other clients. Regards, David
[Dnsmasq-discuss] Dnsmasq on Solaris 10.
Prompted by the discussions on the mailing list, and the free availability of Solaris, I've made a Solaris install under Qemu, and ported the latest dnsmasq release. There were some niggles, but nothing to disruptive. I've put a test release in http://thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/test-releases/dnsmasq-2.41test1.tar.gz which compiles for me, and passes at least a quick test. I'd appreciate it if anyone with suitable facilities and interest could check this out and let me know how well it works. Cheers, Simon.
[Dnsmasq-discuss] GPL v3
Dnsmasq has always been released under GPL version 2. I avoided the FSF's "version 2 or later" wording because I didn't want to give anyone other than me control over the license. Now that GPL version 3 is here, that means I have to decide what to do. As far as I can see there are four options. 1) Nothing: continue to specify GPL version 2 only. 2) Force move to version 3: specify version 3 only. 3) Allow version 2 or version 3, at the users choice. 4) Move to the "version 2 or later" language provided by the FSF. I don't favour option 4: I like what the FSF does, but I still don't want to give them control in the future. I like GPL version 3: especially the "anti-Tivoisation" clauses. Dnsmasq turns up a lot on embedded systems, routers etc, and I like the way the GPL has helped to prise open access to these things. As far as I can see, GPL v3 is better than GPL v2 in this respect. That rules out option 1. So the choice comes down to 2 or 3. GPL v3 only or a choice of v2 or v3. I'm interested in the opinions of the users of dnsmasq, represented by the users of this list. All this, of course only applies to future releases, all existing releases remain and will remain under GPL v2. There's also a possibility of a final GPL v2 release before any change. What does the team think? Cheers, Simon.
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] setting up dynamic DNS?
Adam Hardy wrote:
> It's the fqdn.fqdn line that causes the problem! I took that out of the
> dhclient.conf on the clients and now have just
>
> send host-name gondor;
>
> which works (massive grin!) - thanks!
FQDN overrides hostname (this makes some sense since FQDN is a newer
facility, so one can assume that a FQDN is authoritative, with hostname
left only for servers which don't implement FQDN).
It would help me if you could just check that FQDN works with the
correct domain. The last logs you posted seemed to indicate that the
problem was just a mismatch between the domain part of the FQDN and the
domain configured in dnsmasq. If the FQDN was indeed correct, then there
might be a bug in FQDN handling in dnsmasq. If so, let me know and give
me the version of dnsmasq you're using and I'll take a look.
Cheers,
Simon.
>
> But there is one more niggle: it looks as though dnsmasq on isengard is
> asking the internet name-server where isengard is when another machine
> asks it to resolve its hostname.
>
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[] isengard.localdomain.net from
> 192.168.0.234
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: forwarded isengard.localdomain.net to 194.74.65.69
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: forwarded isengard.localdomain.net to 194.74.65.69
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[] isengard.localdomain.net from
> 192.168.0.234
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: forwarded isengard.localdomain.net to 194.74.65.69
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[A] isengard.localdomain.net from
> 192.168.0.234
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: /etc/hosts isengard.localdomain.net is 192.168.0.2
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[A] isengard.localdomain.net from
> 192.168.0.234
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: /etc/hosts isengard.localdomain.net is 192.168.0.2
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[PTR] 2.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa from
> 192.168.0.234
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: /etc/hosts 192.168.0.2 is isengard.localdomain.net
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[A] isengard.localdomain.net from
> 192.168.0.234
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: /etc/hosts isengard.localdomain.net is 192.168.0.2
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[PTR] 2.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa from
> 192.168.0.234
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: /etc/hosts 192.168.0.2 is isengard.localdomain.net
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[PTR] 234.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa from
> 127.0.0.1
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: DHCP 192.168.0.234 is gondor.localdomain.net
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: query[A] gondor.localdomain.net from 127.0.0.1
> isengard dnsmasq[2716]: DHCP gondor.localdomain.net is 192.168.0.234
>
>
>
> Jan 'RedBully' Seiffert on 10/09/07 21:54, wrote:
>> Adam Hardy wrote:
>>> Thanks again for the help. Config files appended at bottom for
>>> reference.
>>>
>>> Jan 'RedBully' Seiffert on 10/09/07 16:45, wrote:
Adam Hardy wrote:
>>> adam@gondor:~$ cat /etc/resolv.conf
>>> search localdomain.net
>>> nameserver 192.168.0.2
>>
>> Ok, looks good.
>>
>>
Is their default gateway set to isengard? (route -n should say so)
>>> Yes
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so this works.
>>
What's printed to isengards system logs when a client gets an IP?
>>> isengard dnsmasq[26803]: reading /etc/resolv.conf
>>> isengard dnsmasq[26803]: using nameserver 194.74.65.69#53
>>> isengard dnsmasq[26803]: ignoring nameserver 127.0.0.1 - local interface
>>> isengard dnsmasq[26803]: Ignoring DHCP host name arnor.localdomain
>>> because it has an illegal domain part
>>
>> ^^^
>>
>> here is the problem
>>
>> [snip]
>>> /var/lib/misc/dnsmasq.leases has no hostnames in it.
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Doesn't look good does it? :(
>>
>> No no, all working within it's spec IMHO ;)
>>
>>> What do you think could be wrong
>>> with it? There seems to be something wrong with the hostname I'm sending
>>> it ('illegal domain name part')
>>
>> dnsmasq is basicaly fine with the hostname, it does not like the domain
>> you're client is sending.
>> It tries to protect you from forgery.
>> If a client would record itself as www.google.com, and dnsmasq would
>> believe this, it would forward all your LAN machines for www.google.com
>> to this machine.
>>
>> Somehow the "domain=localdomain.net" doesn't do the trick.
>>
>> But when looking again, arnor (and maybe the other machines) is sending
>> "$HOSTNAME.localdomain" as hostname?
>>
>> the final ".net" seems to get eaten...
>>
>> May you can remove all the references to your domain from your
>> dhclient.conf, for a test.
>>
>>> adam@gondor:~$ cat /etc/dhcp3/dhclient.conf |grep -v ^#
>>>
>>> send host-name "gondor.localdomain.net";
>>
>> This should be the hostname only, or?
>>
>>> send dhcp-lease-time 3600;
>>> supersede domain-name "localdomain.net";
>>
>> drop this, dnsmasq should give out the right domain
>>
>>> request subnet-mask, broadcast-address, time-offset, routers,
>>> domain-name, domain-name-servers, host-name,
>>> netbios-name-servers, netbios-scope, interface-mtu;
>>
>>> send fqdn.fqdn "gondor.localdomain.net";
>>> send fqdn.encoded on;
>>> send fqdn.server-update off;
>>>
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] GPL v3
Simon Kelley wrote: > ... > 2) Force move to version 3: specify version 3 only. > 3) Allow version 2 or version 3, at the users choice. > ... > So the choice comes down to 2 or 3. GPL v3 only or a choice > of v2 or v3. > I'm interested in the opinions of the users of dnsmasq, > represented by the users of this list. I, too, like the GPL v3, but also don't think it's wise to ever include an "or later" clause, regardless. I see licensing as just another tool. In this case the goal of the tool GPL is to foster collaboration (advancement) and GPLv3 seems better adapted to the current climate (esp. in the US) than GPLv2. So, I'd say go with GPLv3 eventually and lean towards 2. Maybe the transition period as defined by certain development milestones or a fixed date could allow the choice of GPLv2 or GPLv3. i.e. once X is fixed/implemented we will move to GPLv3 or starting from y1/m1/d1 there is a choice of GPLv2 or GPLv3 after y2/m2/d2 we will begin using GPLv3 only However, I'm a very new user of dnsmasq. A drawback with the GPLv3 is that it is not as easily grasped as the GPLv2. But even so, sw patents are one of the most severe threats to both basic business operations and even development. GPLv3 might help keep sw patents out of Europe, allowing for an eventual salvage of the NAFTA region. regards -Lars
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] GPL v3
(putting on my professional hat for a minute) If you value the inclusion of dnsmasq in commercial products, as part of 'prising them open', then don't force GPL v3 as the only choice. The v3 license is seen as a step too far by many in the industry, upsetting the equilibrium between community and commercial use. In my personal opinion, if the v3 license comes into widespread use, it'll do great harm to the growth of Linux usage in embedded devices. In my professional life, we've has already forbidden GPL v3 code in our product codebase, and we're requiring the same of our vendors. I just think that GPL v3 actually *lessens* the impact that open source can have outside the desktop PC world, and that makes me sad. I want to drive more open source into products, but this makes it harder to do so. If 'anti-TiVoization' clauses mean TiVo and others are forced to go with non-open source solutions (or inferior ones with more commerce-friendly licenses), seems like everyone loses. I'm sure I'll draw fire for this, it's a very emotional subject for many. Paul
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] GPL v3
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Simon Kelley wrote: What does the team think? I personally don't care terribly much; as far as I know, nothing links against dnsmasq, which would be my main reason for concern. (GPLv2 things linking against GPLv3 things = *boom*) Aside from that, all I want is some good advance warning, because we're supposed to announce license changes for our packages, and I'll have to change the tag in the spec. But, since you're including us in this discussion, I'm not too worried you'll blindside us with a license change. :-) Jima
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] GPL v3
I'm not an attorney, and I didn't "stay in a Holiday Inn last night". But I've primarily heard the same arguments against adopting v3 licensed code. They seem to have overstepped their bounds with this version and many echo the same sentiment that it will slow the great momentum that open-source has really built-up. So, given that I've heard it from multiple people who specialize in that field, I have to agree that remaining with v2 would be highly preferable to me. I frankly don't know enough about it to understand that if you gave people the choice between using the v2 license and the v3 license, why one would choose v3. Thanks for the continued great work! -AJ - Original Message - From: Paul Chambers To: dnsmasq discussion list Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] GPL v3 (putting on my professional hat for a minute) If you value the inclusion of dnsmasq in commercial products, as part of 'prising them open', then don't force GPL v3 as the only choice. The v3 license is seen as a step too far by many in the industry, upsetting the equilibrium between community and commercial use. In my personal opinion, if the v3 license comes into widespread use, it'll do great harm to the growth of Linux usage in embedded devices. In my professional life, we've has already forbidden GPL v3 code in our product codebase, and we're requiring the same of our vendors. I just think that GPL v3 actually *lessens* the impact that open source can have outside the desktop PC world, and that makes me sad. I want to drive more open source into products, but this makes it harder to do so. If 'anti-TiVoization' clauses mean TiVo and others are forced to go with non-open source solutions (or inferior ones with more commerce-friendly licenses), seems like everyone loses. I'm sure I'll draw fire for this, it's a very emotional subject for many. Paul ___ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] GPL v3
On 9/11/07, Lars Noodén wrote: > starting from y1/m1/d1 there is a choice of GPLv2 or GPLv3 > after y2/m2/d2 we will begin using GPLv3 only I like this idea a lot. It gives you the opportunity to gauge reaction to the shift better than simple discussion. If you make the period between date1 and date2 six months or a year, you'll be well-armed to make the case for your final decision, whether it's to keep with that track (eventual move to GPLv3 only) or stick with allowing the option of either v2 or v3. Cheers, -- Cristóbal M. Palmer celebrating 15 years of sunsite/metalab/ibiblio: http://tinyurl.com/2o8hj4
