Hello all,
I have a working IPv4 setup as follows:
1) AVM FritzBox as DSL router
2) Debian / dnsmasq 2.80-1 router, with eth0 being uplink to the FritzBox
and eth1.X the client VLANs (1-16)
3) a couple dozen clients in the different VLANs
Now I want to expand this setup to IPv6.
The router
On 26/03/2019 19:33, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 February 2019 17:07:21 Simon Kelley wrote:
>> On 27/02/2019 15:06, Bogdan Harjoc wrote:
>>> There are 50 calls to close() in dnsmasq-2.80, and 10 of them are
>>> wrapped in retry_send().
>>>
>>> "man close" has this paragraph in the section
This all looks sensible, with one exception: the logging in
set_ubus_listeners() and check_ubus_listeners() and associated with the
calls to check_ubus_listeners can potentially massively span the logs -
a long lived error will log multiple lines every time dnsmasq spins its
event loop. It would
Hello other humans,
First, Simon Kelly, thank you for dnsmasq.
I noticed here
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2018q4/012700.html
that there was discussion of the possibility of supporting behavior like
ISC's 'shared-network'. Did this go anywhere? I would absolutely use
On 29/03/2019 20:36, Ryan Gray wrote:
> Hello other humans,
>
> First, Simon Kelly, thank you for dnsmasq.
>
> I noticed here
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2018q4/012700.html
> that there was discussion of the possibility of supporting behavior like
> ISC's
On 21/03/2019 11:01, John Robson wrote:
> OK,
>
> Maybe this does reveal something about the caching...
> Which might be expected behaviour, but I am not convinced it's useful...
>
> Overnight monitoring has shown that the upstream server does
> occasionally send back an incomplete (but
Amazeballs. This is epic. Thank you.
I will absolutely be testing this over the weekend. If it works in the
lab, it's going into production next week. I'll let you know how it
goes.
Thank you very, very much.
Regards,
Ryan Gray
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:13 PM Simon Kelley wrote:
>
> On
