garym wrote: > I don't know what Dnsmasq is, but I can confirm that I have two Booms > that have a gateway of 192.168.1.1 but a DNS of 8.8.8.8 (the google > public dns addresses) and both booms work just fine. So i'd suspect the > dnsmasq is creating the issue instead of booms not working with > different gateway and dns addresses, as the latter can work just fine.
Well, of course, the user is always to blame. (In this case the other software the user uses). For that to be helpful I would seriously need to know whether there are any other reports of dnsmasq users having trouble, because in that case there should be many (it is a very popular program). For example, the open source routing firmware OpenWRT also uses dnsmasq. It is just a very lightweight application that can hand out DNS resolution for your local network based on DHCP leases. So in my case when any computer that has a hostname set for itself acquires a DHCP address, whether it is fixed or truly dynamic, this supplied hostname will be used by the DNS server to resolve addresses on that network. In principle, what it means is that DHCP lease == entry in DNS database (table). And you can also add static addresses as a hostname or even give fixed DHCP leases (addresses) to certain hostnames or MAC addresses as they are supplied. If there would be anything "wrong" with it as you suggest there would need to be something wrong with -every- installation that uses DNSmasq. If your theory then is correct and it has nothing to do with discrepancy between DHCP and gateway, you would need to see scores of these issues everywhere....... :-/. So I don't really feel like being the first person to research this after it having been on the market (or have been) for so long. ;-). Sorry if I'm being a bit terse and hostile here. I just want to get my words out quickly before I give up again because I cannot find the right words and I give up again. Sorry about that. What you tell me is a discrepancy/difference between gateway/dhcp and dns, but I am talking about a discrepancy/difference between dhcp/dns and gateway, so it's a different thing too. I must say I have seen other threads somewhere where someone complained about a lease being given (or offered) and the boom not recognising it. I may need to look them up again, anyway. Thanks for your consideration in any case, I am happy there are even (scratch that) --- that there are people on these forums ;-). Still! :). Thanks. Mnyb wrote: > Are they on the same subnet ,this is required ? is UDP broadcast > allowed port 3483 open on the server . > > However the DHCP issue can be a bug , for example squeezebox reciever > does not accept DNS servers other than 192.168.0.1 ,192.168.1.1 and a > couple of typical addresses ? > > Give not the player and the server static IP , no one is going to build > new firmware now for a dead product line . Please don't kill an attempt or idea by saying that "it isn't going to work" or "nobody works for it anymore" or "nobody cares" or "I don't like the question". They are on the same subnet. I don't see why broadcast doesn't work if other people (devices) can find the server. DHCP is always broadcast, there is no other way a client can find it. So other devices work == there is broadcast. More even the log of the server indicates that the broadcast from the client is received, and an offer is made by the server. Maybe what you say is right about the bug, thank you. But I can still test what happens if I give another gateway (the same as the dhcp) even thought it might not work for routing the traffic. Then everything would be 192.168.1.3, thanks. Yes I gave it static IP now, what else can I do? But your allusion is incorrect, and that is what I have a problem with. "no one is going to build new firmware now for a dead product line." I have been wanting to make new firmware for a long time. I just haven't gotten around to it. I haven't had the time, or the opportunity. All of that sounds like an excuse, and it is. But I think you might forgive my circumstances. However, that was not the point of this question. You can't say that no one is going to make a new firmware. You don't know this you know. That bugs me because you are talking to someone who wants or wanted to do it :(. I'm not sure if it is still interesting though. I have been living in incapacitation for over a year now, and time goes fast when you're not having fun. Sorry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Xenthar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=57935 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105498 _______________________________________________ Boom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/boom
