On 10/04/2019 17:55, Jan Willem Janssen wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-04-08 at 20:41 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
>>> I've to give it some thought about how we could support multiple Dnsmasq 
>>> instances in
>>> combination with UBus. Not sure how the DBus implementation would handle 
>>> this...
>> It doesn't: the path is a compile-time parameter.
>> It's not clear that the entities on the other end of the UBus under
>> openwrt could cope with multiple instances. The pragmatic solution might
>> be to turn Ubus off for one of them.
> There's one solution I can think of: making the name under which we register 
> the UBus
> object configurable (with "dnsmasq" as default for backwards compatibility). 
> It would
> allow multiple instances to be configured each with their own unique name.
> We could extend the existing `enable-ubus` flag to allow this name to be 
> supplied from the
> command line/configuration file. 
> @Simon Kelley: WDYT?

See my answer above: Ubus == openWRT and friends. If the infrastructure
in openWRT can talk to multiple dnsmasq instances at different ubus
names, or it's a sensible ambition for it to do so in the future, then
it's good to support it.

If Harmut's config is unique, and works without openWRT talking to both
dnsmasq instances, then the solution may be just to turn off ubus on one
of the dnsmasq instances.


Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to