Something to do with the recent change of the root DNSSEC key?
(dnsmasq has the new key in its codebase, but perhaps your config
isn't pulling it in correctly?)
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 6:23 PM Craig Andrews wrote:
>
> I'm unable to look up *.disa.mil when using dnsmasq - I'm hoping that we
> can
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 12:05 PM Loganaden Velvindron
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:13 PM Rick Thomas wrote:
> >
> > What do I need to do to be ready for the DNSSEC Root KSK (key signing
> key) rollover on October 11, 2018?
> >
>
> Well, dnsmasq already commited a patch for the new trust anch
Thanks Simon!
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:50 PM Simon Kelley
wrote:
> Patch applied.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon.
>
> On 18/01/18 14:15, Neil Jerram wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:35 PM Simon Kelley > <mailto:si...@thekelleys.org.uk>> wrote:
> &
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:35 PM Simon Kelley
wrote:
> On 14/01/18 18:14, Neil Jerram wrote:
> > Thanks for looking at this, Simon. Some thoughts below...
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 5:34 PM Simon Kelley > <mailto:si...@thekelleys.org.uk>> wrote:
> &
th?
>
In principle I'm happy to code up and test multiple solutions here; it's
not a large amount of work in any case. So please do let me know what you
would prefer.
Best wishes - Neil
>
>
> On 07/01/18 14:25, Neil Jerram wrote:
> > Calico [1] with OpenStack
>
thoughts!
Neil
From b39df72629f4226a2fcba104ff108d155a7e7372 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Neil Jerram
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 01:03:26 +
Subject: [PATCH] Allow options longer than 1025 chars
Calico [1] with OpenStack uses dnsmasq with a very long
--bridge-interface option:
--bridge-interface=,,,...,
https://github.com/jsoref/dnsmasq/commit/56dc618b840dd893a65f02df2fb14752bb7ef33d
is wrong; the word should be 'amended'.
Original Message
From: Josh Soref
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017 06:58
To: dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
Subject: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Spelling fixes for dnsmasq
Hmm, one correction here - I just discovered that it is not true that
"Linux does not allow overlapping CIDRs to be defined on multiple
interfaces (in the same namespace)".
So perhaps --interface=tap* on its own could work after all...
Neil
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 7:48 PM N
y insecure, but it is the scenario that
networking-calico uses too.)
Regards,
Neil
Original Message
From: Vasiliy Tolstov
Sent: Friday, 27 May 2016 22:50
To: Neil Jerram
Cc: dnsmasq-discuss
Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] many tap devices, provide dhcp and ipv6 slaac
2016-05-27 17:56
Hi Vasiliy,
I assume your TAP devices are _not_ bridged on the host?
If so, you can use the same approach as we use for Calico networking in
OpenStack -
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/networking-calico/implementation-notes.html#dhcp
You'll need:
- a dummy interface, with an address in t
Thank you!
Neil
On 03/05/16 23:28, Simon Kelley wrote:
> That seems quite straightforward. Thanks. Patch applied without change.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon.
>
>
>
> On 08/04/16 19:27, Neil Jerram wrote:
>> I'm sorry not to have noticed this before
17 00:00:00 2001
From: Neil Jerram
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 19:23:47 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix DHCPv4 reply via --bridge-interface alias interface
Sending a DHCPv4 reply through a --bridge-interface alias interface
was inadvertently broken by
commit 65c721200023ef0023114459a8d12f8b0a24cfd8
A
On 26/01/16 15:09, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
>> Am 26.01.2016 um 14:46 schrieb Simon Kelley :
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 26/01/16 13:42, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
>>> what about writing and sending kill 1 / HUP?
>>
>> No. The only on
On 22/10/15 00:06, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> Simon Kelley (si...@thekelleys.org.uk) wrote on Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at
> 07:51:32PM BRST:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20/10/15 22:33, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
>>> I'm stumbling on an important problem that looks like
Hi Johannes,
Sorry, I've only just noticed this...
On 03/06/15 06:52, Johannes Martin wrote:
Hi,
I have the following network setup:
- eth0: 192.168.1.254/24
- br0: 192.168.10.254/24
bridging virtual interfaces eth0.10 and wlan0.10
(plain virtual interfaces, no vlan tagging)
I have
Thanks Simon!
On 10/06/15 22:49, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 10/06/15 10:57, Neil Jerram wrote:
Alternatively, here is the whole patch set again, regenerated so as to
incorporate those deltas at the appropriate places.
Many thanks for your time looking at these enhancements.
Regards,
Neil
On 10/06/15 10:15, Neil Jerram wrote:
On 09/06/15 22:11, Simon Kelley wrote:
A couple of (very small quibbles)
-/* The source interface can only appear in at most
- one --bridge-interfaces. */
+/* The source interface! can only
On 10/06/15 10:47, Neil Jerram wrote:
On 10/06/15 10:15, Neil Jerram wrote:
On 09/06/15 22:11, Simon Kelley wrote:
A couple of (very small quibbles)
-/* The source interface can only appear in at most
- one --bridge-interfaces
On 09/06/15 22:11, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 08/06/15 12:37, Neil Jerram wrote:
I'm sorry, this is a really old thread that I'm only just now getting
back to.
As a reminder, it's a set of patches that extend the semantics of
--bridge-interface to DHCPv6 and router advertisem
en running with this for a while - albeit on a base of
2.72 - so we have some confidence that the patches are correct.
Please would you consider merging these patches into upstream dnsmasq?
Many thanks,
Neil
On 13/10/14 17:45, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 07/10/14 18:28, Neil Jerram wrote
Hi there!
Does anyone know offhand what the detailed semantics are for multiple
dnsmasq instances trying to bind to and receive DHCP packets from the
same interfaces?
My reason for asking is that I'm running a test with two dnsmasq
instances, both of which are instructed to bind to all TAP interf
> > Hi Ken,
> >
> >> Running a packet capture on both my server and a host, I can see the
> >> "solict" packet from the host to the server; however the server doesn't
> >> send an "advertise" packet back to the client (but logging in syslog
> >> says that it *did* send a DHCPADVERTISE, and shows a
Hi Ken,
> Running a packet capture on both my server and a host, I can see the
> "solict" packet from the host to the server; however the server doesn't
> send an "advertise" packet back to the client (but logging in syslog
> says that it *did* send a DHCPADVERTISE, and shows a valid IPv6 address
> On 03/10/14 16:54, Neil Jerram wrote:
> > I'd like to propose the attached patches, which extend the aliasing
> > concept of the --bridge-interface option to DHCPv6 and Router
> > Advertisement processing. [...]
>
> A query: the semantics you've provided f
Hi Praveen,
> I would like to run the DHCPv6 Server on android devices.
> Please provide us the info to run the dnsmasq for such use case.
> Please provide all necessary info like configuration and command line
> arguments etc.
May I suggest that you first look at the dnsmasq man page? You can
Hi all,
I'd like to propose the attached patches, which extend the aliasing
concept of the --bridge-interface option to DHCPv6 and Router
Advertisement processing. Prior to these patches, the effect of the
--bridge-interface option is limited to DHCPv4. I think it's a
natural extension for it to
Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 11/06/14 15:49, Neil Jerram wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > Please would you consider the attached patch, which allows a trailing '*'
> wildcard
> > in each that is specified in the --bridge-interface option. My team
> is
>
Hi Simon,
Please would you consider the attached patch, which allows a trailing '*'
wildcard
in each that is specified in the --bridge-interface option. My team is
working on a new form of host/VM networking where VM data is routed instead of
bridged, and this patch allows us to use dnsmasq as
28 matches
Mail list logo
