Focusing on the current dnsmasq code, I guess the take-home message here
is that we're probably better off to revert the code which adds RIOs,
for now, as the only RIOs we're sending are exactly the ones which
Steven suggests should be suppressed. Should probably re-visit the issue
of more
Yes, due to new information IMHO it's better to revert RIO till
extensive testing and reworking. Maybe it should be implemented with
additional config-file option to toggle on and explicitly set prefix to
be sent in RIO.
On 09/11/2014 01:15 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 10/09/14 15:41, Steven
Hi,
On 22 Aug 2014, at 16:57, Rene Bartsch m...@bartschnet.de wrote:
BIND and PowerDNS can sign resource records automatically when run as primary
DNS with DNSSEC. Does Dnsmasq support signing resource records automatically
in authoritative mode or are there any plans to support automatic
In spite of fact that dnsmasq send's only on-link prefixes and in absence of
RIO control, let's follow Steven proposal regarding RIO and avoidance of
duplicate routes on Win* platforms.
Please refer patch, it also tides up option length calculating, as used in
other parts of code.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Jeroen van der Ham vd...@uva.nl wrote:
Hi,
On 22 Aug 2014, at 16:57, Rene Bartsch m...@bartschnet.de wrote:
BIND and PowerDNS can sign resource records automatically when run as
primary DNS with DNSSEC. Does Dnsmasq support signing resource records
Hi,
On 11 Sep 2014, at 19:40, Jim Gettys j...@freedesktop.org wrote:
When exactly would you want dnsmasq to run as an authoritative name server?
All the time, for my home network. It's my name space, I control it, and I
need to have control over what names are globally/locally visible.
On 11/09/14 14:50, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
Hi,
On 22 Aug 2014, at 16:57, Rene Bartsch m...@bartschnet.de wrote:
BIND and PowerDNS can sign resource records automatically when run
as primary DNS with DNSSEC. Does Dnsmasq support signing resource
records automatically in authoritative mode
On 10/09/14 22:50, Filippo Valsorda wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote:
On 10/09/14 00:34, Filippo Valsorda wrote:
DS records are a ugly special case in DNSSEC, and they are kept not by
the zone NS but by the one on top of it.
So when faced
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote:
On 10/09/14 22:50, Filippo Valsorda wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk
wrote:
On 10/09/14 00:34, Filippo Valsorda wrote:
DS records are a ugly special case in DNSSEC, and
