I got a direct response so I'm forwarding it here and my following
responses are below...
> depends on your setup but for me dnsmasq is authoritative for the
> locally served domain, and forwards all other domains out to the
> internet.
But it's still dnsmasq that does the reply, or does it tell the hosts
somehow that they should ask the other ns?
> so if hosts 4 and 5 are setup correctly with TWO dns sources of
> information your dnsmasq ip first, and a public internet source
> second.
I'm not sure I understand that sentence...
> You said that router2 only had one ip cable interface which to me
> suggests that router1 and router2 are connected to each other via WIFI
> link since the ip cable interface hooks router2 up to the internet.
Yes I didn't explain that part - the WiFi link are two APs separate from
the routers, connected to my networks through standard switches.
So the setup actually looks like this:
------ Internet ------
/ \
/ \
/ \
Router1 --- AP <======> AP --- Router2
(w/dnsmasq) (proprietary)
/ | \ | \
host1 host2 host3 host4 host5
Where /|\- are ethernet/DSL links, = is WiFi.
> if router2 suddenly has a WIFI problem, then yes hosts 4 and 5 do lose
> all inet capability because the link is broken.
Router1 has its own DSL link, as does router2. The WiFi link should only
be responsible of linking the two LAN segments, not participating in
internet communication at all.
> You'll forgive me, but I dont see the value in the extra work you are
> doing here.
>
> Seems to me like you have added extra equipment you dont need and made
> your network more complex, but have not solved a problem.
>
> whats wrong with this:
>
> internet
> -----------
> |
> router1 w/dnsmasq
> -----------
> / \
> cabled wifi router2
> hosts ---------------
> repeated \
> wireless hosts
I don't want the second segment to depend on the first one. They have
their separate web connections (which, in turn, I can use as a fallback
for the other one.
> I understand (I think) what problem you were trying to solve with your
> original setup, but I guess I dont think you solved it.
> they arent two seperate subnets that need to talk to each other, so
> since they are the same subnet I would try to wire them that way.
>
> Feel free to enlighten me if you think I missing something.
Router1 and 2 are on two different physical locations (the WiFi is a
200m bridge). I want the two locations to be independent when it comes
to internet connection, I only want the WiFi to allow fast connections
between the hosts on either side, but still use their
respective connections to the internet.
Thanks for the insight anyway, the basic idea is that I'd like dnsmasq
to say 'dunno, ask the other guy' to queries for remote domains. On the
other hand if that's not possible there's no real problem, it's not like
DNS traffic is a big one and if dnsmasq would be unavailable, the hosts
will ask upstream anyway.
--
Michal Sawicz <[email protected]>
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Michal Sawicz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, I'm trying to set up something like so:
>
> --- Internet ---
> / \
> / \
> / \
> Router1 -----WiFi---- Router2
> (w/dnsmasq) (proprietary)
> / | \ | \
> host1 host2 host3 host4 host5
>
> I would like dnsmasq to only reply to local queries, so that hosts 4 and
> 5 could access hosts 1-3 by name and at the same time use its own
> Internet connection to access remote hosts.
>
> I know I need to set two nameservers (one local and one remote) on all
> the hosts but then how do I set dnsmasq so that it would only reply to
> local queries and tell the hosts to ask the remote dns for other
> queries?
>
depends on your setup but for me dnsmasq is authoritative for the
locally served domain, and forwards all other domains out to the
internet.
so if hosts 4 and 5 are setup correctly with TWO dns sources of
information your dnsmasq ip first, and a public internet source
second.
> What will happen if the WiFi connection dies (hosts 4 and 5 are,
> unfortunately, M$) - will hosts 4 and 5 be unable to browse the web if
> their primary NS won't reply?
>
You said that router2 only had one ip cable interface which to me
suggests that router1 and router2 are connected to each other via WIFI
link since the ip cable interface hooks router2 up to the internet.
if router2 suddenly has a WIFI problem, then yes hosts 4 and 5 do lose
all inet capability because the link is broken.
> Maybe there's another - better - way to achieve what I need?
>
> The basic idea is: all the hosts are on the same subnet (the wifi APs
> can only do bridging, Router2 only has one ethernet interface etc.). I
> want them to connect to the internet using their respective connections
> but also be able to communicate easily over the WiFi connection.
>
You'll forgive me, but I dont see the value in the extra work you are
doing here.
Seems to me like you have added extra equipment you dont need and made
your network more complex, but have not solved a problem.
whats wrong with this:
internet
-----------
|
router1 w/dnsmasq
-----------
/ \
cabled wifi router2
hosts ---------------
repeated \
wireless hosts
I understand (I think) what problem you were trying to solve with your
original setup, but I guess I dont think you solved it.
they arent two seperate subnets that need to talk to each other, so
since they are the same subnet I would try to wire them that way.
Feel free to enlighten me if you think I missing something.
--- End Message ---
