On 05/02/16 10:36, Jarek Polok wrote:
> Hello everybody !
>
> I'm trying to set up the pxe server / proxy dhcp,
> using dnsmasq 2.66 and setting options:
>
> [...]
> #system interface setup
> #eth2:
> #[...]
> #inet X.X.X.158/YY brd X.X.X.159 scope global eth2
> #inet X.X.X.150/YY scope global
Hello
On 05/02/16 22:55, Simon Kelley wrote:
[...]
Dnsmasq doesn't pay much attention to setting the source address in DHCP
replies, since for bog-standard DHCP, it's totally ignored. The
information about where the reply is coming from is carried in fields in
the DHCP packet. Are you sure
Hi,
We are experiencing some weird behavior when using dnsmasq as dns cache. We are
using it in a webserver that makes lots of dns request for just a bunch of
backend servers, so the # of cache entries is usually very low, but for some of
these entries, dnsmasq is forwarding more requests than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/02/16 10:47, Comerma Pare, Antoni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are experiencing some weird behavior when using dnsmasq as dns
> cache. We are using it in a webserver that makes lots of dns
> request for just a bunch of backend servers, so the # of
On 04/02/16 15:48, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> When you configure a domain as local, meaning that dnsmasq will never
> forward queries within that domain, there is no way to configure a
> negative cache TTL value since there is no SOA record. As a result, I
> frequently run into a problem where I try
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
That's very ingenious!
Your post begs the question "Will you merge the patch?"
I'm not sure: it's a pretty niche application, and there are lots of
cases where it does the wrong thing. For instance when a query arrives
from area1, there's nothing
Hello everybody !
I'm trying to set up the pxe server / proxy dhcp,
using dnsmasq 2.66 and setting options:
[...]
#system interface setup
#eth2:
#[...]
#inet X.X.X.158/YY brd X.X.X.159 scope global eth2
#inet X.X.X.150/YY scope global secondary eth2
listen-address=X.X.X.150 # this is a
On 05/02/2016 22:22, Simon Kelley wrote:
> That's very ingenious!
Thanks --- Kurt (repeatedly) described it in far less flattering terms :)
> Your post begs the question "Will you merge the patch?"
>
> I'm not sure: it's a pretty niche application, and there are lots of
> cases where it does
