Hi!

I am new maintainer of dnsmasq package in RHEL. I am looking for potential 
problems with upgrade from dnsmasq 2.66 to version 2.76. And I have found 
something.
Commit [1] changed behaviour of --interface eth0:0 behavior.

The first problem is, manual page is not updated. It tells you cannot use 
labels, but you can.
Also it does not tell you you can use -i eth0,eth0:0,eth0:1,lo, but that is 
minor change.

Labels are now supported and dnsmasq is able to bind only to secondary IPv4 
interface with different address. (Since 2.67!)
It works well with --bind-interfaces. However it has inconsistent behavior with 
and without that option.

Let's say my configuration is:
4: virbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP 
group default qlen 1000
    link/ether 52:54:00:2b:ee:d3 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 192.168.122.1/24 brd 192.168.122.255 scope global virbr0
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet 192.168.122.254/24 scope global secondary virbr0:1
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever


$ dnsmasq -i virbr0
will respond to queries to both addresses. It might be useful backward 
compatibility feature.
However
$ dnsmasq -i virbr0:1
Will respond only on address 192.168.122.254. Ok, call it a feature.

Problem is,
$ dnsmasq -i virbr0 -z
Will respond only on address 192.168.122.1, as I would expect.

$ dnsmasq -i virbr0:1 -z
Behaves the same way, as without -z.

I think different behavior is an error. It might be a feature, but even then, 
it has to be documented.
Opinions?

[1] 
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commit;h=3f2873d42c4d7e7dba32b6e64a3687d43928bc8e

Cheers,
Petr
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
email: pemen...@redhat.com  PGP: 65C6C973


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

Reply via email to