Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] 'shared-network' behavior would be huge
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:55 AM Simon Kelley wrote: > > On 01/04/2019 16:33, Ryan Gray wrote: > > Update on testing the new shared-network configuration: My lab > > network is the happiest network right now. This is great. > > > > A few clarifications: I needed to set the source part of the > > shared-network parameter to the IP of my relay, not the IP or > > interface of my dnsmasq server. > > That's expected (and documented) if you're running a relay. In this > case, the only information about which physical network the client is on > is the relay address inserted into the DHCP request by the relay. Totally makes sense. Thank you for all of your work on this. Seriously, this addition is greatly appreciated. > > My dnsmasq server is at 10.200.200.1 > > which is bound to its br0 interface. My dhcp relay (Brocade switch) > > holds the gateways for VLANs that need DHCP. The one I'm testing is a > > vlan with an IP interface of 192.168.127.254/24 and a subinterface > > 192.168.128.254/24, so all requests from that VLAN are coming from > > 192.168.127.254. > > > > I added this to my config: > > > > shared-network=192.168.127.254,192.168.128.0 > > > > And it works! I am even successfully handing out some addresses based > > on nothing other than their subscriber-id (whole different talk show), > > and it's now working. > > > > What if I know that an interface is going to have multiple 'gateway' > > IPs, but I'm not sure which one the switch/router will be using as its > > source. In the example above, if I don't know whether or not the > > requests will be coming from .127.254 or .128.254, can I safely just > > have a 'shared-network' config line for each even though one will be a > > bit redundant (shared-network=192.168.127.254,192.168.127.0)? > > Yes, that should work fine. > > > Cheers, > > Simon. > > > > > So far, this is really great. Thank you so much. > > > > > > Regards, > > Ryan Gray > > > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 5:13 PM Simon Kelley > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 30/03/2019 18:33, Ryan Gray wrote: > >>> TLDR; How do I use "shared-network" exactly? :) > >>> > >>> Everything compiled and is up and running with no changes to my > >>> existing configs or method of execution. I'm a little unclear about > >>> how to hold this tool. > >>> > >>> Assuming a router interface of 192.168.4.126/25 and no sub interfaces, > >>> I typically do something like this: > >>> > >>> dhcp-range=set:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",192.168.4.1,192.168.4.125,255.255.255.128,1h > >>> tag-if=set:internet-pool,tag:internet-192_168_4_0_25 > >>> dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",3,192.168.4.126 > >>> dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",1,255.255.255.128 > >>> dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",5,8.8.8.8 > >>> > >>> If I add another gateway IP to that router interface (I use "gateway > >>> IP" loosely), 192.168.5.0/24 and and assuming the router with the > >>> ip-helper configured is, by default, going to say "hey, I'm > >>> 192.168.4.126". With ISC, having ranges for 192.168.4.1-125 and > >>> 192.168.5.1-253 within the block of config that defines a > >>> shared-network would make things copacetic. > >>> > >>> The question: In this scenario, am I to start dnsmasq with > >>> "--shared-network=192.168.4.126,192.168.5.0"? If so, I'm not > >>> sure if my subnet definition strategy above is going to stay the same > >>> because I'm not sure how dnsmasq is going to treat this in regards to > >>> tags. Perhaps I'm just looking at this sideways. > >>> > >> > >> > >> You need to have something like > >> > >> shared-network=192.168.4.1,192.168.5.0 > >> > >> assuming that the interface on the machine running dnsmasq is 192.168.4.1 > >> > >> or > >> > >> shared-network=eth0,192.168.5.0 > >> > >> assuming that the interface is so-named. > >> > >> Either of these will allow dnsmasq to allocate addresses on the sunnet > >> that includes 192.168.5.0, but to make that happen you need a dhcp-range > >> which tells it which addresses are available. This dhcp-range MUST have > >> the netmask: normally dnsmasq can figure out the netmask, but it doesn't > >> have enough information in this case. > >> > >> You can set tag in the dhcp-range, as before, and use it to control the > >> DHCP options sent to the client (which should include router, as the > >> normal default route option won't be sent. > >> > >> > >> Simon. > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:13 PM Simon Kelley > >>> wrote: > > 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 'shared-network'. Did this go anywhere? I would absolutely use > > this and would be happy to perform any testing that would help. I didn't > > see other mentions of this
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] 'shared-network' behavior would be huge
On 01/04/2019 16:33, Ryan Gray wrote: > Update on testing the new shared-network configuration: My lab > network is the happiest network right now. This is great. > > A few clarifications: I needed to set the source part of the > shared-network parameter to the IP of my relay, not the IP or > interface of my dnsmasq server. That's expected (and documented) if you're running a relay. In this case, the only information about which physical network the client is on is the relay address inserted into the DHCP request by the relay. > My dnsmasq server is at 10.200.200.1 > which is bound to its br0 interface. My dhcp relay (Brocade switch) > holds the gateways for VLANs that need DHCP. The one I'm testing is a > vlan with an IP interface of 192.168.127.254/24 and a subinterface > 192.168.128.254/24, so all requests from that VLAN are coming from > 192.168.127.254. > > I added this to my config: > > shared-network=192.168.127.254,192.168.128.0 > > And it works! I am even successfully handing out some addresses based > on nothing other than their subscriber-id (whole different talk show), > and it's now working. > > What if I know that an interface is going to have multiple 'gateway' > IPs, but I'm not sure which one the switch/router will be using as its > source. In the example above, if I don't know whether or not the > requests will be coming from .127.254 or .128.254, can I safely just > have a 'shared-network' config line for each even though one will be a > bit redundant (shared-network=192.168.127.254,192.168.127.0)? Yes, that should work fine. Cheers, Simon. > > So far, this is really great. Thank you so much. > > > Regards, > Ryan Gray > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 5:13 PM Simon Kelley wrote: >> >> >> >> On 30/03/2019 18:33, Ryan Gray wrote: >>> TLDR; How do I use "shared-network" exactly? :) >>> >>> Everything compiled and is up and running with no changes to my >>> existing configs or method of execution. I'm a little unclear about >>> how to hold this tool. >>> >>> Assuming a router interface of 192.168.4.126/25 and no sub interfaces, >>> I typically do something like this: >>> >>> dhcp-range=set:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",192.168.4.1,192.168.4.125,255.255.255.128,1h >>> tag-if=set:internet-pool,tag:internet-192_168_4_0_25 >>> dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",3,192.168.4.126 >>> dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",1,255.255.255.128 >>> dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",5,8.8.8.8 >>> >>> If I add another gateway IP to that router interface (I use "gateway >>> IP" loosely), 192.168.5.0/24 and and assuming the router with the >>> ip-helper configured is, by default, going to say "hey, I'm >>> 192.168.4.126". With ISC, having ranges for 192.168.4.1-125 and >>> 192.168.5.1-253 within the block of config that defines a >>> shared-network would make things copacetic. >>> >>> The question: In this scenario, am I to start dnsmasq with >>> "--shared-network=192.168.4.126,192.168.5.0"? If so, I'm not >>> sure if my subnet definition strategy above is going to stay the same >>> because I'm not sure how dnsmasq is going to treat this in regards to >>> tags. Perhaps I'm just looking at this sideways. >>> >> >> >> You need to have something like >> >> shared-network=192.168.4.1,192.168.5.0 >> >> assuming that the interface on the machine running dnsmasq is 192.168.4.1 >> >> or >> >> shared-network=eth0,192.168.5.0 >> >> assuming that the interface is so-named. >> >> Either of these will allow dnsmasq to allocate addresses on the sunnet >> that includes 192.168.5.0, but to make that happen you need a dhcp-range >> which tells it which addresses are available. This dhcp-range MUST have >> the netmask: normally dnsmasq can figure out the netmask, but it doesn't >> have enough information in this case. >> >> You can set tag in the dhcp-range, as before, and use it to control the >> DHCP options sent to the client (which should include router, as the >> normal default route option won't be sent. >> >> >> Simon. >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:13 PM Simon Kelley >>> wrote: 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 'shared-network'. Did this go anywhere? I would absolutely use > this and would be happy to perform any testing that would help. I didn't > see other mentions of this so I thought I'd ask. > > Dead serious, this would be spectacular. > > Today (actually, yesterday) is your lucky day: http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commit;h=ae5b7e04a1025167f1b80840e61432a3cea9625c Do please test! Simon > Regards, > Ryan Gray > > >
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] 'shared-network' behavior would be huge
Update on testing the new shared-network configuration: My lab network is the happiest network right now. This is great. A few clarifications: I needed to set the source part of the shared-network parameter to the IP of my relay, not the IP or interface of my dnsmasq server. My dnsmasq server is at 10.200.200.1 which is bound to its br0 interface. My dhcp relay (Brocade switch) holds the gateways for VLANs that need DHCP. The one I'm testing is a vlan with an IP interface of 192.168.127.254/24 and a subinterface 192.168.128.254/24, so all requests from that VLAN are coming from 192.168.127.254. I added this to my config: shared-network=192.168.127.254,192.168.128.0 And it works! I am even successfully handing out some addresses based on nothing other than their subscriber-id (whole different talk show), and it's now working. What if I know that an interface is going to have multiple 'gateway' IPs, but I'm not sure which one the switch/router will be using as its source. In the example above, if I don't know whether or not the requests will be coming from .127.254 or .128.254, can I safely just have a 'shared-network' config line for each even though one will be a bit redundant (shared-network=192.168.127.254,192.168.127.0)? So far, this is really great. Thank you so much. Regards, Ryan Gray On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 5:13 PM Simon Kelley wrote: > > > > On 30/03/2019 18:33, Ryan Gray wrote: > > TLDR; How do I use "shared-network" exactly? :) > > > > Everything compiled and is up and running with no changes to my > > existing configs or method of execution. I'm a little unclear about > > how to hold this tool. > > > > Assuming a router interface of 192.168.4.126/25 and no sub interfaces, > > I typically do something like this: > > > > dhcp-range=set:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",192.168.4.1,192.168.4.125,255.255.255.128,1h > > tag-if=set:internet-pool,tag:internet-192_168_4_0_25 > > dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",3,192.168.4.126 > > dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",1,255.255.255.128 > > dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",5,8.8.8.8 > > > > If I add another gateway IP to that router interface (I use "gateway > > IP" loosely), 192.168.5.0/24 and and assuming the router with the > > ip-helper configured is, by default, going to say "hey, I'm > > 192.168.4.126". With ISC, having ranges for 192.168.4.1-125 and > > 192.168.5.1-253 within the block of config that defines a > > shared-network would make things copacetic. > > > > The question: In this scenario, am I to start dnsmasq with > > "--shared-network=192.168.4.126,192.168.5.0"? If so, I'm not > > sure if my subnet definition strategy above is going to stay the same > > because I'm not sure how dnsmasq is going to treat this in regards to > > tags. Perhaps I'm just looking at this sideways. > > > > > You need to have something like > > shared-network=192.168.4.1,192.168.5.0 > > assuming that the interface on the machine running dnsmasq is 192.168.4.1 > > or > > shared-network=eth0,192.168.5.0 > > assuming that the interface is so-named. > > Either of these will allow dnsmasq to allocate addresses on the sunnet > that includes 192.168.5.0, but to make that happen you need a dhcp-range > which tells it which addresses are available. This dhcp-range MUST have > the netmask: normally dnsmasq can figure out the netmask, but it doesn't > have enough information in this case. > > You can set tag in the dhcp-range, as before, and use it to control the > DHCP options sent to the client (which should include router, as the > normal default route option won't be sent. > > > Simon. > > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:13 PM Simon Kelley > > wrote: > >> > >> 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 'shared-network'. Did this go anywhere? I would absolutely use > >>> this and would be happy to perform any testing that would help. I didn't > >>> see other mentions of this so I thought I'd ask. > >>> > >>> Dead serious, this would be spectacular. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> Today (actually, yesterday) is your lucky day: > >> > >> http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commit;h=ae5b7e04a1025167f1b80840e61432a3cea9625c > >> > >> Do please test! > >> > >> > >> Simon > >> > >> > >>> Regards, > >>> Ryan Gray > >>> > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > >>> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > >>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss > >>> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > >> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > >> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss > >
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] 'shared-network' behavior would be huge
On 30/03/2019 18:33, Ryan Gray wrote: > TLDR; How do I use "shared-network" exactly? :) > > Everything compiled and is up and running with no changes to my > existing configs or method of execution. I'm a little unclear about > how to hold this tool. > > Assuming a router interface of 192.168.4.126/25 and no sub interfaces, > I typically do something like this: > > dhcp-range=set:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",192.168.4.1,192.168.4.125,255.255.255.128,1h > tag-if=set:internet-pool,tag:internet-192_168_4_0_25 > dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",3,192.168.4.126 > dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",1,255.255.255.128 > dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",5,8.8.8.8 > > If I add another gateway IP to that router interface (I use "gateway > IP" loosely), 192.168.5.0/24 and and assuming the router with the > ip-helper configured is, by default, going to say "hey, I'm > 192.168.4.126". With ISC, having ranges for 192.168.4.1-125 and > 192.168.5.1-253 within the block of config that defines a > shared-network would make things copacetic. > > The question: In this scenario, am I to start dnsmasq with > "--shared-network=192.168.4.126,192.168.5.0"? If so, I'm not > sure if my subnet definition strategy above is going to stay the same > because I'm not sure how dnsmasq is going to treat this in regards to > tags. Perhaps I'm just looking at this sideways. > You need to have something like shared-network=192.168.4.1,192.168.5.0 assuming that the interface on the machine running dnsmasq is 192.168.4.1 or shared-network=eth0,192.168.5.0 assuming that the interface is so-named. Either of these will allow dnsmasq to allocate addresses on the sunnet that includes 192.168.5.0, but to make that happen you need a dhcp-range which tells it which addresses are available. This dhcp-range MUST have the netmask: normally dnsmasq can figure out the netmask, but it doesn't have enough information in this case. You can set tag in the dhcp-range, as before, and use it to control the DHCP options sent to the client (which should include router, as the normal default route option won't be sent. Simon. > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:13 PM Simon Kelley wrote: >> >> 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 'shared-network'. Did this go anywhere? I would absolutely use >>> this and would be happy to perform any testing that would help. I didn't >>> see other mentions of this so I thought I'd ask. >>> >>> Dead serious, this would be spectacular. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> Today (actually, yesterday) is your lucky day: >> >> http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commit;h=ae5b7e04a1025167f1b80840e61432a3cea9625c >> >> Do please test! >> >> >> Simon >> >> >>> Regards, >>> Ryan Gray >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list >>> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk >>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss >>> >> >> >> ___ >> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list >> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk >> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss > ___ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] 'shared-network' behavior would be huge
TLDR; How do I use "shared-network" exactly? :) Everything compiled and is up and running with no changes to my existing configs or method of execution. I'm a little unclear about how to hold this tool. Assuming a router interface of 192.168.4.126/25 and no sub interfaces, I typically do something like this: dhcp-range=set:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",192.168.4.1,192.168.4.125,255.255.255.128,1h tag-if=set:internet-pool,tag:internet-192_168_4_0_25 dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",3,192.168.4.126 dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",1,255.255.255.128 dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",5,8.8.8.8 If I add another gateway IP to that router interface (I use "gateway IP" loosely), 192.168.5.0/24 and and assuming the router with the ip-helper configured is, by default, going to say "hey, I'm 192.168.4.126". With ISC, having ranges for 192.168.4.1-125 and 192.168.5.1-253 within the block of config that defines a shared-network would make things copacetic. The question: In this scenario, am I to start dnsmasq with "--shared-network=192.168.4.126,192.168.5.0"? If so, I'm not sure if my subnet definition strategy above is going to stay the same because I'm not sure how dnsmasq is going to treat this in regards to tags. Perhaps I'm just looking at this sideways. On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:13 PM Simon Kelley wrote: > > 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 'shared-network'. Did this go anywhere? I would absolutely use > > this and would be happy to perform any testing that would help. I didn't > > see other mentions of this so I thought I'd ask. > > > > Dead serious, this would be spectacular. > > > > > > > > Today (actually, yesterday) is your lucky day: > > http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commit;h=ae5b7e04a1025167f1b80840e61432a3cea9625c > > Do please test! > > > Simon > > > > Regards, > > Ryan Gray > > > > > > ___ > > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss > > > > > ___ > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss ___ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] 'shared-network' behavior would be huge
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 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 'shared-network'. Did this go anywhere? I would absolutely use > > this and would be happy to perform any testing that would help. I didn't > > see other mentions of this so I thought I'd ask. > > > > Dead serious, this would be spectacular. > > > > > > > > Today (actually, yesterday) is your lucky day: > > http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commit;h=ae5b7e04a1025167f1b80840e61432a3cea9625c > > Do please test! > > > Simon > > > > Regards, > > Ryan Gray > > > > > > ___ > > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss > > > > > ___ > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss ___ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] 'shared-network' behavior would be huge
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 'shared-network'. Did this go anywhere? I would absolutely use > this and would be happy to perform any testing that would help. I didn't > see other mentions of this so I thought I'd ask. > > Dead serious, this would be spectacular. > > Today (actually, yesterday) is your lucky day: http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commit;h=ae5b7e04a1025167f1b80840e61432a3cea9625c Do please test! Simon > Regards, > Ryan Gray > > > ___ > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss > ___ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
[Dnsmasq-discuss] 'shared-network' behavior would be huge
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 this and would be happy to perform any testing that would help. I didn't see other mentions of this so I thought I'd ask. Dead serious, this would be spectacular. Regards, Ryan Gray ___ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
