On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:03:13PM +0100, Josh H wrote: > On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 16:56, <wkitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > what about nftables if you are using a recent version of linux? many seem > > to be moving to nftables from iptables... > > https://linuxhandbook.com/iptables-vs-nftables/ > > > Running the command "nft list ruleset" gives me no output, > so I assume no rules have been setup.
Yes, that makes sense. Josh H wrote in another message: ( http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2020q2/013988.html) > I'm running a very odd environment in that I'm using 2 usermodelinux > virtual machines connected via a virtual hub. Seems to me something that should work. However I have no exprience with UML > I've got such a simple > setup because originally I had a much larger configuration and wanted > to test it wasn't something messed up in routing and such. Oops. The simple setup doesn't work. In case there are two UML VMs that "see each other" through the vHub, feel free to share that config with us. > Just wanted to add that dnsmasq 2.62 with a much older Linux kernel > (3.2 from memory?) worked on this sort of setup perfectly fine, so > it seems thats either the kernel update or a newer version of dnsmasq > has broken something along the way. I don't understand, but yes indeed Kernel, libc and dnsmasq should be alined. I hope this helps, otherwise read the message as "posting is been seen" Regards Geert Stappers -- Silence is hard to parse _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasqfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss