Hello all,
I have a VPN setup using IPSec with racoon to access as specific subnet, where
dnsmasq runs as a DNS and DHCP server.
I would like to resolve domains using it from the clients that are connected
via the VPN, but it haven't figured out how, the clients can reach dnsmasq but
the reque
On 10/05/11 06:47, Takayuki Kaiso wrote:
Hi Simon
Thank you.
I did the test with dnsmasq-2.58test8, which gave me the URL and
got the following problem with DHCPREQUEST.
Mar 4 21:23:17 RMRZOO-81 daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp[19120]:
DHCPDISCOVER(wlan1) 00:1e:52:ab:77:fd
Mar 4 21:23:17 RMRZOO-81 daem
On 10/05/2011 09:53, Simon Kelley wrote:
> There's two stages to think about. One: a requestor sends a UDP request
> to dnsmasq. All of these are received by dnsmasq through the same
> listening socket, or a best through a very few sockets.
I'm not 100% sure, but given that dnsmasq can ensure tha
Ed W wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 13:19, Simon Kelley wrote:
>
>> From src/config.h, yo can edit and re-compile if you need to.
>>
>> #define FORWARD_TEST 50 /* try all servers every 50 queries */
>> #define FORWARD_TIME 20 /* or 20 seconds */
>
> Aha - that looks superb
>
> Do you foresee any issues
On 10/05/2011 13:19, Simon Kelley wrote:
> From src/config.h, yo can edit and re-compile if you need to.
>
> #define FORWARD_TEST 50 /* try all servers every 50 queries */
> #define FORWARD_TIME 20 /* or 20 seconds */
Aha - that looks superb
Do you foresee any issues with settings around say th
Ed W wrote:
> Hi
>
>> Jan's answer is completely correct. The only thing to add is that
>> the changes in 2.53 don't make --all-servers the default, they
>> change the behaviour when there is more than one server for a
>> particular domain:
>>
>> --server=/example.net/1.2.3.4 --server=/example.ne
Jan Seiffert wrote:
> 2011/5/10 Ed W :
>> Slightly related - I see that --all-servers might have become the default
>> now?
>>
>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2010q2/003942.html
>>
>> Is there some way to disable this and use "known to be up"? The reason is
>>
2011/5/10 Ed W :
> Slightly related - I see that --all-servers might have become the default now?
>
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2010q2/003942.html
>
> Is there some way to disable this and use "known to be up"? The reason is that
> I'm seeing a large ICMP "unr
Slightly related - I see that --all-servers might have become the default now?
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2010q2/003942.html
Is there some way to disable this and use "known to be up"? The reason is that
I'm seeing a large ICMP "unreachable" response generat
Ed W wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 08:06, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> Yes, I would consider such a feature request, and in principle, passing
>> information over from incoming DNS requests to outgoing DNS requests is
>> quite simple. The pointer to Squid is good, it gives API examples which
>> show that thi
On 10/05/2011 08:06, Simon Kelley wrote:
> Yes, I would consider such a feature request, and in principle, passing
> information over from incoming DNS requests to outgoing DNS requests is
> quite simple. The pointer to Squid is good, it gives API examples which
> show that this is quite easy. H
On 10/05/11 00:03, Ed W wrote:
Hi, I have a slightly peculiar requirement to track very accurate *per
user* traffic for a small remote bunch of users. The internet
connections these users have available will be some kind of satellite
telephone with non trivial bandwidth costs and we want to attr
Hi Simon
Thank you.
I did the test with dnsmasq-2.58test8, which gave me the URL and
got the following problem with DHCPREQUEST.
Mar 4 21:23:17 RMRZOO-81 daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp[19120]: DHCPDISCOVER(wlan1)
00:1e:52:ab:77:fd
Mar 4 21:23:17 RMRZOO-81 daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp[19120]: DHCP
Hi, Simon
I do appreciate your comments, it is so helpful for me.
Basically, I think I am sharing your points.
Do you have comments/thoughts with the following points ?
thanks for taking one more time again.
The problem is that a DHCP client, once it is configured, does not need
to se
Hi, I have a slightly peculiar requirement to track very accurate *per
user* traffic for a small remote bunch of users. The internet
connections these users have available will be some kind of satellite
telephone with non trivial bandwidth costs and we want to attribute very
exact costs back on a
15 matches
Mail list logo
