On 03/04/14 08:14, David Beveridge wrote:

>> Prefix length has to be greater than or equal to 64, is that what you
>> mean?  It's about implementation convenience. C doesn't provide a
>> integer data type larger than 64 bits for doing masking. of the
>> address-part.
>>
> 
> Fair enough.  So I have a copy of dnsmasq running on my bind dns server
> just to handle the synthetic reverse (which bind can't do), so each /64
> needs to be individually configured in dnsmasq.  It's good to know why.
> 
> I can't just get lazy and synth a whole /48 or /32.
> Probably out of scope for what dnsmasq is designed for anyway.

That's what I told myself when I wrote the code, it's crazy to use
arbitary-precision maths in a DNS daemon. Then a year later I
implemented DNSSEC which uses public-key crypto, based in
arbitrary-precision maths :-)

Cheers,

Simon.

> 
> dave
> 
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Simon.
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
> 


_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

Reply via email to