Hi,
Say, I've a docker container and at the same time, I run dnsmasq on
the host as the local DNS resolver listening on 1270.0.1:6053. In this
case, how should I set the dnsmasq/iptables so that docker container
can use the dnsmasq as its dns resolver running on host?
Regards,
HY
--
Assoc.
Hi Peter.
I was asking about turning off IPv6 support because it's something we've been
doing when running 2.78 for quite a while and we've encountered a problem after
upgrading to 2.81. In trying to debug what could be happening we noticed the
IPv6 addresses in use and were confused because
On 30/10/2020 15:30, Petr Menšík wrote:
It is year 2020, IPv6 is far too long with us to be optional.
Has it?
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
Looks to me like most of the world doesn't even have IPv6.
And thanks to Netflix blocking if you use
Massimo,
Simon’s reasoning for removing support is stated in the git commit. It was the
source of a large number of ifdefs in the code, primarily for handling old
embedded libc versions.
Removing the flags allowed him to remove all the ifdefs and make the code more
maintainable overall.
I’d
I admit deployment on consumer links is quite slow. I have no IPv6
native connectivity myself. But it is different connecting over IPv6 and
supporting its addresses.
What would disabling on compile time bring? Smaller dnsmasq binary?
dnsmasq is tiny already. But it has many bugs. Many of them
The dnsmasq commit that removed HAVE_IPV6 means dnsmasq must be compiled on a
system with IPv6 headers.
But at runtime, dnsmasq works on a IPv4-only (ipv6 module not loaded) Linux
system. Even without the ipv6 network stack (no protocol family 10 registered)
dnsmasq will happily resolve
It is year 2020, IPv6 is far too long with us to be optional. IPv4
support is not optional either. It is just ability to parse IPv6
addresses and listen on its sockets. DHCPv6 can still be disabled,
because it can be considered separate feature.
That means, nobody is forcing you to deploy IPv6.
Hi Chris, Petr
I agree with Chris: I wish we could disable IPv6 support.
There are scenarios - like usage in intranet LANs, IPv4 only - this feature is
useless.
For best practice, unwanted features should be disabled:
1) avoid any possibility of hitting bugs in code paths that implemet this
Hi Rubén,
it seems to me support for tags on source clients would be more useful
and easily understandable. Also, it already supports concept of tag: and
set: in DHCP world. It should work to adapt also DNS queries to use it.
I think, you would usually group of clients, which should share the
Hi Chris,
It was intentionally removed in commit ee8750451b4[1], removed in 2.81
release. On what platform is disabling of IPv6 required? I think it
should work well with built-in IPv6 support, which would not be used.
Why do you want to disable built-in support for it?
1.
10 matches
Mail list logo
