Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] gatway

2013-10-08 Thread Simon Kelley
On 06/10/13 11:32, Vladislav Grishenko wrote: Hi, RFC4861 says: A router might want to send Router Advertisements without advertising itself as a default router. For instance, a router might advertise prefixes for stateless address autoconfiguration while not wishing to forward

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Clarification of prefix length field in dhcp-range

2013-10-08 Thread Simon Kelley
On 06/10/13 09:28, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote: On 05/10/2013 22:43, Quintus wrote: Am Sat, 5 Oct 2013 14:21:26 +0100 schrieb Kevin Darbyshire-Bryantke...@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk: Hi All, Hi Kevin, dnsmasq2.67rc3 - possibly odd behaviour, probably I misunderstand :-) I have an interface

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] enable-ra problem

2013-10-08 Thread Simon Kelley
On 05/10/13 15:33, Gene Czarcinski wrote: I recently had a problem where dnsmasq caused the system to crash by filling the syslog with messages related to enable-ra. My currently solution is to not use enable-ra and instead use radvd. The messages in syslog are a pair of the form:

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] DHCPv6 Prefix delegation

2013-10-08 Thread Simon Kelley
On 07/10/13 22:18, mudru...@spoje.net wrote: Hello, is it possible to do prefix delegation using DHCPv6 in dnsmasq? No. I'd really like to do this. i am using dnsmasq to successfully serve network with 2000+ clients, but now i need to support IPv6 too, but all of these client router devices

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] gatway

2013-10-08 Thread Vladislav Grishenko
From: Simon Kelley Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 4:20 PM On 06/10/13 11:32, Vladislav Grishenko wrote: Hi, RFC4861 says: A router might want to send Router Advertisements without advertising itself as a default router. For instance, a router might advertise prefixes

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Clarification of prefix length field in dhcp-range

2013-10-08 Thread Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
On 08/10/2013 11:42, Simon Kelley wrote: This is definitely a bug. Sorry Simon! Historically, the prefix-length in the dhcp-range has had to match the prefix length configured into the interface. This was carried over from DHCPv4. If, as an experiment, you stop using constructed ranges and