I think easiest solution would be listening of dnsmasq on all addresses
and putting unbound on different port. Forward to it by
server=127.0.0.20#1053. It would require dnsmasq to proxy all requests
to unbound, but that should not hurt. IPv6 still can be used to reach
unbound, custom port would be
I'm not sure that this is the correct solution to the problem.
I'd argue that this is an unbound issue: A reply to a DNS query that
doesn't echo the qname surely cannot be considered a valid reply?
I'm not sure why unbound would do that.
The query-id is only 16 bits, so can't be considered
I think this is the crux.
dnsmasq is listening on the wildcard address and accepting packets which
arrive from lo. lo has address 127.0.0.20 (amongst others) and
therefore dnsmasq is deciding that queries is sends to 127.0.0.20 will
end up back at itself, and refusing to do that because it's a
On 20/07/2020 14:11, Jinn Ko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While using dnsmasq as embedded in the pi-hole project I came across an issue
> with how TCP
> DNS requests are handled over Wireguard interfaces.
>
> A ticket was raised in the FTL project
> (https://github.com/pi-hole/FTL/issues/824) and the
>
Hello Petr!
On Tuesday 21 July 2020 14:23:51 Petr Menšík wrote:
> I think more correct would be using the same DUID on both systems.
Problem is that DUID generation is under control of operating system and
during installation of operating system, every one generates its own. It
is not under user
Btw, found windows allows releasing of leases to be configured from DHCP
server. I doubt similar option is accepted on ISC DHCP client.
NetworkManager probably does not implement such thing.
This should help you avoiding conflicts between multiple instances in a
different way. Never used it, not
More below...
On 7/22/20 9:40 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hello Petr!
>
> On Tuesday 21 July 2020 14:23:51 Petr Menšík wrote:
>> I think more correct would be using the same DUID on both systems.
>
> Problem is that DUID generation is under control of operating system and
> during installation of
Hello Petr!
On Wednesday 22 July 2020 14:42:16 Petr Menšík wrote:
> More below...
>
> On 7/22/20 9:40 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Hello Petr!
> >
> > On Tuesday 21 July 2020 14:23:51 Petr Menšík wrote:
> >> I think more correct would be using the same DUID on both systems.
> >
> > Problem is
Hi Simon,
I admit it can be dangerous. It might instead just mark waiting query as
"received invalid response", so without any better response received, it
should syntetize SERVFAIL reply after some timeout. Or it might just
postpone that response to timeout. If valid response arrived sooner, it
On 7/22/20 3:44 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hello Petr!
>
> On Wednesday 22 July 2020 14:42:16 Petr Menšík wrote:
>> More below...
>>
>> On 7/22/20 9:40 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
>>> Hello Petr!
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 21 July 2020 14:23:51 Petr Menšík wrote:
I think more correct would be using the
On Wednesday 22 July 2020 15:35:33 Petr Menšík wrote:
> Btw, found windows allows releasing of leases to be configured from DHCP
> server. I doubt similar option is accepted on ISC DHCP client.
> NetworkManager probably does not implement such thing.
>
> This should help you avoiding conflicts
11 matches
Mail list logo
