On Wed, 24 Aug 2011, Ian Pilcher wrote:
On 08/22/2011 06:35 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
If it could also not grab port 0.0.0.0:53 in the future, that would be
great. I'd like to work with whichever libvirt developer takes this
package on.
Are you talking about dnsmasq or the way that libvirt
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 10:24 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011, Ian Pilcher wrote:
On 08/22/2011 06:35 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
If it could also not grab port 0.0.0.0:53 in the future, that would be
great. I'd like to work with whichever libvirt developer takes this
package
2011/8/25 Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com:
Again, this is based on f14, not f15/f16. I am not sure how much this has been
addressed. But if we want DNSSEC validation on the endnode, at the very least
127.0.0.1:53 needs to be left free.
Are you sure the dnsmasq instance started by libvirt is
On 25/08/11 15:24, Paul Wouters wrote:
Here the issue is:
3) I mostly don't need/want any DNS/DHCP in my bridged setup, but it still
configures and starts dnsmasq (at least on F14 using virt-manager)
(eg I have a /28 bridges to eth1 with static IPs, I don't want it)
The biggest
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Tomas Mraz wrote:
3) I mostly don't need/want any DNS/DHCP in my bridged setup, but it still
configures and starts dnsmasq (at least on F14 using virt-manager)
(eg I have a /28 bridges to eth1 with static IPs, I don't want it)
On a non-bridged setup it listens
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2011/8/25 Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com:
Again, this is based on f14, not f15/f16. I am not sure how much this has
been
addressed. But if we want DNSSEC validation on the endnode, at the very least
127.0.0.1:53 needs to be left free.
Are you
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 04:37:26PM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2011/8/25 Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com:
Again, this is based on f14, not f15/f16. I am not sure how much this has
been
addressed. But if we want DNSSEC validation on the endnode, at the very
least
127.0.0.1:53 needs to
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
libvirt's dnsmasq will never be grabbing any 127.0.0.1 address. It is
In my experiments it did not, and the issue instead was that the other
DNS server [1] wanted to grab port 53 on *all* interfaces.
Yeah, that is the normal problem people see.
On 08/22/2011 06:35 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
If it could also not grab port 0.0.0.0:53 in the future, that would be
great. I'd like to work with whichever libvirt developer takes this
package on.
Are you talking about dnsmasq or the way that libvirt uses dnsmasq?
The interfaces on which
On 08/24/2011 12:24 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
When libvirt starts dnsmasq, it tells it to ignore the configuration
file and passes all of the parameters on the command line. If you want
dnsmasq to not listen on 0.0.0.0:53 when it's started by libvirt, you'll
have to take that up with the libvirt
(Sent on behalf of jima, the former owner)
The dnsmasq package in Fedora has now been orphaned. This package is in
need of a new maintainer and should not be allowed to lapse, as it is a
critical component of the virtualization features.
It is used by libvirt to manage DNS/dhcp for client VMs
Hello Stephen,
On 08/22/2011 01:49 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
(Sent on behalf of jima, the former owner)
The dnsmasq package in Fedora has now been orphaned. This package is in
need of a new maintainer and should not be allowed to lapse, as it is a
critical component of the virtualization
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
(Sent on behalf of jima, the former owner)
The dnsmasq package in Fedora has now been orphaned. This package is in
need of a new maintainer and should not be allowed to lapse, as it is a
critical component of the virtualization features.
It is
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:33:58PM -0400, Douglas Landgraf wrote:
Hello Stephen,
On 08/22/2011 01:49 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
(Sent on behalf of jima, the former owner)
The dnsmasq package in Fedora has now been orphaned. This package is in
need of a new maintainer and should not
14 matches
Mail list logo
