On 2/12/23 20:23, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 12/02/2023 16:19, Harald Jensas wrote:
On 2/11/23 23:39, Simon Kelley wrote:
Is dnsmasq acting as the relay or as the DHCP server in that pcap?
Simon.
dnsmasq is acting as the DHCP server in the attached pcap.
I'm confused.
The code in dnsmasq
On 2/11/23 23:39, Simon Kelley wrote:
Is dnsmasq acting as the relay or as the DHCP server in that pcap?
Simon.
dnsmasq is acting as the DHCP server in the attached pcap.
--
Harald
On 10/02/2023 17:01, Harald Jensas wrote:
Hi,
The router is dropping relay replies from dnsmasq because
Hi,
The router is dropping relay replies from dnsmasq because it sees the
Option 79 with lenght of 0 as invalie, i.e less that minimum length.
I have attached a pcap file showing that the reply from dnsmasq does
include Option 79 with len == 0.
RFC6939 - 6. DHCPv6 Server Behavior
"""
On 9/16/21 21:32, Petr Menšík wrote:
Hi!
There is also bug on Red Hat bugzilla [1] for this issue, which contains
a bit more comments about it.
I would make short summary here. The problem is client on the same
machine with the same DUID and mac address requests IPv6. Before it
processes
On 9/15/21 21:22, Geert Stappers via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 08:23:47AM +0200, Harald Jensas wrote:
On 9/14/21 21:12, Geert Stappers via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 04:58:10PM +0200, Harald Jensas wrote:
Hi,
We are seeing an issue whit network
On 9/14/21 21:12, Geert Stappers via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 04:58:10PM +0200, Harald Jensas wrote:
Hi,
We are seeing an issue whit network booting over DHCPv6 is failing.
The UEFI firmware is starting two DHCPv6 transactions, with separate IAID's.
Initially one
Hi,
We are seeing an issue whit network booting over DHCPv6 is failing.
The UEFI firmware is starting two DHCPv6 transactions, with separate
IAID's. Initially one transactions succeeds, while the other transaction
fails because the same address (fd42::200) is advertised.
On error, the client
On Fri, 1 May 2020, 16:28 Petr Menšík, wrote:
> Hi Harald and Geert,
>
> I looked at it and it is quite confusing what it does. Not quite simple
> to understand. I think it is not uncommon for dnsmasq code, but this
> brings more knobs to make it more complicated.
>
> I tried to rewrite it
Hi,
The patch below is a slight alteration to a possible solution
discussed in
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2017q1/011289.html.
My approach here does not require making dhcp-host conditional on a
tag. However, making dhcp-host conditional on a tag would be a nice
