Robert,
Looking at the code there is an upper limit of 1 for --cache-size
-- src/option.c --
case 'c': /* --cache-size */
{
int size;
if (!atoi_check(arg, &size))
ret_err(gen_err);
else
{
/* zero is OK, and means no caching.
Hi,
I wonder if there is some sort of internal limit on caching?
I set cache-size=5, restarted dnsmasq and the limit
according to the caching service is 1
# kill -10 10150; tail -n5 /var/log/messages | egrep 'cache size'
Jun 1 19:18:41 dnsmasq1 dnsmasq[10150]: cache size 1, 0/2660
On 27/05/15 05:34, Kevin Benton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a pointer to the format of the lease database somewhere? I'm
> interested in what the last column is used for. It looks like the MAC of
> the client with an extra hex pair at the front.
It's the DHCP client-id.
Cheers,
Simon.
>
> I jus
Patch applied, also cleared AA bit.
Many thanks for this.
Cheers,
Simon.
On 27/05/15 20:41, swigger wrote:
> Signed-off-by: swigger
>
> First, sorry for my poor English, hope you can read it.
>
> My openwrt router at 192.168.1.1 runs dnsmasq.
> There are two DNS ips set automaticly by my I
On 18/05/15 19:58, e9hack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it seems that '--except-interface' doesn't work properly. I need one
> interface which is
> never used by dnsmasq. I would like to run hostapd with driver wired on it.
> If I use
> '--except-interface=xxx', it doesn't work because hostapd complains abou
> On the surface it looks like it's either pointless behavior on the server's
> part or incorrect logic in the DHCP client. Am I missing something?
Yes, without overriding serverid to one from incoming request packet, the
server’s nak could be pointless.
But with overriding, it’ll introduce the
Let me rephrase it slightly. What is the point of dnsmasq NAKing client
responses to other servers if the clients are being programmed to ignore
the NAKs?
On the surface it looks like it's either pointless behavior on the server's
part or incorrect logic in the DHCP client. Am I missing something?
>That's my opinion too (although I can see a flip side to the coin: if
>clients honor NAKs from any sever, then a rogue machine could break a
>local noetwork by NAKing any and all DHCPREQUESTs, effectively DoSing
>the whole segment at least).
Oh definitely. DHCPNAKs are definitely not a good way t
Hi Kevin,
> why do DHCP servers like dnsmasq generate them in the first place?
Because it’s per dnsmasq configuration and the effects are well-described in
the man.
http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html
-K, --dhcp-authoritative
Should be set when dnsmasq is definit
Hi Kevin,
Le Mon, 1 Jun 2015 02:02:27 -0700, Kevin Benton a
écrit :
> I understand, but that eliminates the whole 'correcting rouge dhcp offers'
> part of the authoritative mode.
>
> If we are teaching clients to ignore NAKs from other DHCP servers, why do
> DHCP servers like dnsmasq generate t
I understand, but that eliminates the whole 'correcting rouge dhcp offers'
part of the authoritative mode.
If we are teaching clients to ignore NAKs from other DHCP servers, why do
DHCP servers like dnsmasq generate them in the first place? Wouldn't it be
logically consistent to make a change to d
11 matches
Mail list logo