Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] interface-name records vs localise-queries

2017-02-02 Thread Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
Thank you Simon! Much appreciated. And your 2.77test1 tar along with the localise fix has just gone into LEDE master, things should get a bit more testing there :-) Cheers, Kevin On 02/02/17 16:57, Simon Kelley wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] interface-name records vs localise-queries

2017-02-02 Thread Simon Kelley
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commit;h=d42d4706bbcce3 b5a40ad778a5a356a997db6b34 Have fun. Cheers, Simon. On 01/02/17 13:41, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote: > > > On 17/01/17 04:05, Eric Luehrsen wrote: >> Hi Kevin, >>

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] interface-name records vs localise-queries

2017-02-02 Thread Simon Kelley
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I looked at this, and the man page LIES. --interface-name returns all the addresses associated with an interface. Question: is openWRT associating the same name with more than one interface (which would be the only way that localise-queries would

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] interface-name records vs localise-queries

2017-02-01 Thread Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
On 17/01/17 04:05, Eric Luehrsen wrote: Hi Kevin, Reading the man page, I would expect the primary address is returned (localized) and it acts just like any /etc/hosts entry. This would imply that this is a bug or oversight. quote: -interface-name=,[/4|/6] Return a DNS record

[Dnsmasq-discuss] interface-name records vs localise-queries

2017-01-11 Thread Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
Hello All, Recently LEDE changed the way it allocates names to interfaces, now using '-interface-name' rather than putting names in /etc/hosts or similar. Unfortunately this new method appears incompatible with 'localise-queries' in that all interfaces/aliases are included in the reply to