Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [RFC] Add --dhcp-reply-delay option to delay DHCP replies

2017-03-22 Thread Floris Bos
Hi, On 03/22/2017 10:01 PM, Simon Kelley wrote: As a patch, it looks pretty good. The main problem I have is that the new option becomes one of the those annoying things that have to be set to make things work, but have no other value. There are already quite a few dnsmasq options which are

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [RFC] Add --dhcp-reply-delay option to delay DHCP replies

2017-03-22 Thread Alex Xu
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:37:12 +0100 Floris Bos wrote: > Adds option to delay replying to DHCP packets by one or more seconds. > This provides a workaround for a PXE boot firmware implementation > that has a bug causing it to fail if it receives a (proxy) DHCP > reply

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] No more random source port

2017-03-22 Thread Simon Kelley
On 22/03/17 16:30, Risto Suominen wrote: > Mar 20 22:12:00 risto-Macmini dnsmasq[30248]: using nameserver > 8.8.8.8#53(via eth0) This indicates that dnsmasq has been configured to force the packets to the upstream server via eth0. To do that requires an operation on the socket which can only

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH v2] Add support for binding to both interface and IP

2017-03-22 Thread Simon Kelley
Good stuff. Patch applied. Cheers, Simon. On 20/03/17 19:44, Kristian Evensen wrote: > The current --server syntax allows for binding to interface or address. > However, > in some (admittedly special) cases it is useful to be able to specify both. > This > commit introduces the following

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [RFC] Add --dhcp-reply-delay option to delay DHCP replies

2017-03-22 Thread Simon Kelley
As a patch, it looks pretty good. The main problem I have is that the new option becomes one of the those annoying things that have to be set to make things work, but have no other value. There are already quite a few dnsmasq options which are essentially "--dont-break" and if I can avoid

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] No more random source port

2017-03-22 Thread Risto Suominen
Hi Albert, 2017-03-21 22:47 UTC+02.00, Albert ARIBAUD : > > I can't see why your dnsmasq would only use one port. This would be the > behavior for -Q0 (or -Q45807, but your dnsmasq does not have this option > in its command line. > I took in the source package and added