Hi William,
I think priority is correct here. Well observed!
On 10/2/21 13:55, William Edwards wrote:
> Jochen Demmer via Dnsmasq-discuss schreef op 2021-10-02 10:28:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been trying to develop my own kind of firewall solution named
>> nftwall which uses nftables as packet filter
Hello Jochen,
I think it would need to be more complex change I think.
On 10/4/21 13:04, Jochen Demmer via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm sorry for being unclear.
> There is a cluster of two firewalls (active passive).
> The clients use the link local address as their default gateway. I
>
Hey,
On 10/4/21 14:37, Dominik Derigs wrote:
> Hey Petr,
>
> On Mon, 2021-10-04 at 11:45 +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
>> Perhaps a flag could be added to dhcp-range, requesting also
>> addition of dhcp-hosts to static dns.
> Maybe this flag would better be set on --dhcp-host and --dhcp-
> hostsfile
Hi,
I have two interfaces on my router, one for home and the other for office. I’d
like for clients from home and office to use different upstream DNS servers.
I know I can use two Dnsmasq instances to achieve that, but that prevents the
two types of clients to access each other by host names
Thank you so much for bringing VLAN trunking to my attention. I’ve successfully
set it up on the router and the AP, with one Dnsmasq instance to rule them all!
It’s a really elegant solution.
Regards,
Glen
> On Oct 2, 2021, at 2:59 PM, Paul Fertser wrote:
>
> Hi Glen,
>
>> On Wed, Sep 29,
Hey Geert,
On 10/2/21 14:40, Geert Stappers via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <8a018620-25a7-a292-c951-dd2017d54...@redhat.com>
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 12:53:39PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
>> On 4/30/21 12:42 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2021 18:35, Petr Menšík wrote:
Hi
Hi Michael,
On 10/5/21 14:43, Michael wrote:
> On 10/4/21 05:37, Dominik Derigs wrote:
>> Hey Petr,
>>
>> On Mon, 2021-10-04 at 11:45 +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
>>> Perhaps a flag could be added to dhcp-range, requesting also
>>> addition of dhcp-hosts to static dns.
>> Maybe this flag would
Hey Michael,
On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 05:43 -0700, Michael wrote:
> Maybe I am misunderstanding the issue, but dnsmasq already give
> the ability that is being asked for I believe.
if you go back one mail earlier than my last mail, you'd see that
the we're discussing specifically to not need two
On 10/5/2021 2:43 PM, Michael wrote:
On 10/4/21 05:37, Dominik Derigs wrote:
Hey Petr,
On Mon, 2021-10-04 at 11:45 +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
Perhaps a flag could be added to dhcp-range, requesting also
addition of dhcp-hosts to static dns.
Maybe this flag would better be set on --dhcp-host
On 10/4/21 05:37, Dominik Derigs wrote:
Hey Petr,
On Mon, 2021-10-04 at 11:45 +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
Perhaps a flag could be added to dhcp-range, requesting also
addition of dhcp-hosts to static dns.
Maybe this flag would better be set on --dhcp-host and --dhcp-
hostsfile if this is used?
Hi Simon,
We have chosen to listen by default just on localhost interface, like
default configuration of BIND9 and Unbound has. However I have received
multiple bug reports since that. People do not reconfigure defaults,
because that was not required before. They stumble often on the default.
It
I could not find any relevant difference between nuc-efi.pcapng and
qemu-efi.pcapng responses. They seem very similar. Yet qemu continues
with TFTP download and next step. Nuc does not react anyhow to boot
offer. It seems to not download or start snponly.efi. It seems to me the
answer lies only on
Hey Simon,
Since commit "Fix --address=/#/.. which was lost in 2.86"
(26bbf5a314d833beaf0f147d24409969f05f3dba) --local being a
synonym for --server is broken as --local became a synonym for --
address.
The attached patch fixes this.
This was reported on the Pi-hole forums:
> I have
On 10/5/2021 5:13 PM, Petr Menšík wrote:
Hey Geert,
On 10/2/21 14:40, Geert Stappers via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote:
In-Reply-To: <8a018620-25a7-a292-c951-dd2017d54...@redhat.com>
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 12:53:39PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
On 4/30/21 12:42 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 14/04/2021
On 6/10/21 09:11, Petr Menšík wrote:
On 10/5/21 20:28, john doe wrote:
Those tools are not standards, for instance on OpenWRT.
dig is quite standard thing for troubleshooting DNS. If it is not
available for OpenWRT, it should be fixed. I am bind9 maintainer too, it
might get surprising to me.
Hey Petr and others,
On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 17:13 +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> It would be beneficial to have also behavior tests.
it may be the time to mention that we do exactly this for Pi-hole
FTL which embeds the full dnsmasq for the DNS part. On every
commit, a virtual machine is started
On 30/09/2021 23:49, Petr Menšík wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> I were checking it a bit on test build and found part of file
> 0013-Fix-coverity-issues-detected-in-domain-match.c.patch avoided
> application. domain-match.c:447 still has add_resource_record return
> value unchecked, unlike A record above.
On 05/10/2021 19:52, Dominik Derigs wrote:
> Hey Simon,
>
> Since commit "Fix --address=/#/.. which was lost in 2.86"
> (26bbf5a314d833beaf0f147d24409969f05f3dba) --local being a
> synonym for --server is broken as --local became a synonym for --
> address.
>
> The attached patch fixes this.
On 05/10/2021 21:50, Petr Menšík wrote:
> I have already reported it, but might got lost in different thread.
>
> https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2021q3/015723.html
>
> I took a look at the change, it seems it was intentional. Your proposed
> change would break
19 matches
Mail list logo
