I think so as well. It may create issues when someone runs 2 dnsmasq
processes with different configurations (for different interfaces for
example - 1 dnsmasq process per interface). Kernel may "balance" incoming
UDP packets to another dnsmasq instance (which AFAIR will just ignore it),
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Ignat Korchagin wrote:
> FYI a good overview of SO_REUSEPORT at least in Linux is here
Thanks. The article deals with accepting on a TCP socket, not
receiving on a UDP
FYI a good overview of SO_REUSEPORT at least in Linux is here
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Parke wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Parke wrote:
> > And there is the
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Parke wrote:
> And there is the big question of: Will each incoming UDP packet be
> sent to all receiving sockets? Or just to one out of a pool of
> receiving sockets?
Looks like load balancing to me.
>From man 7 socket on Linux:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> If I understand this right, I think I can replicate it with e.g.
> dnsmasq --interface=eth0 \
> --dhcp-range=192.168.0.50,192.168.0.100,12h \
> --bind-interfaces \
In terms of DNS on port
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 06:40:10PM -0800, Parke wrote:
> Here is a minimal, three line test.conf file:
If I understand this right, I think I can replicate it with e.g.
dnsmasq --interface=eth0 \