Hey Simon, First of all, thanks again for fixing my DNSSEC issue. So as I said before, here's my feature request.
I have a FreeBSD box that has multiple local IP addresses on the local 'lo0' interface, used by jails as their IPv4 interface address. Those IPs vary somewhere in the 127.0.0.x range. The jails use those addresses as their IPv4 addresses to communicate with the outside world, while being NAT-ed on the only available external IPv4 address. IPv6-wise, I have a bridge0 interface that handles the many different addresses assigned to my box, each assigned to one jail each. Unbound runs in a jail and thus I've told dnsmasq to communicate with either the IPv4 127.0.0.x address, or the IPv6 address of the jail when looking up DNS records. When starting dnsmasq on the 'host' environment (it's the only service other than syslog I run in the host environment), dnsmasq refuses to communicate with the IPv4 address of the jailed unbound, claiming it's a 'local' address: Jul 20 13:33:23 ksol dnsmasq[99396]: ignoring nameserver 127.0.0.20 - local interface Whereas it's indeed a 'local' interface, it could be used for IPv4 communication because of the mentioned reasons above. Because of this, dnsmasq is now only able to communicate through IPv6 with unbound, but should I lose IPv6 support (unlikely but one never knows), I'd lose dnsmasq and the internal name resolution between the jails, which now it is able to support. So my request would be to fix this functionality and make dnsmasq able to differentiate between local IPs, in order to be able to use them for DNS resolution. Cheers, -- László Károlyi http://linkedin.com/in/karolyi
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
