Opened 3 years ago

Closed 3 years ago

#19978 closed enhancement (not_a_bug)

Support both DNSMASQ and ODHCPD for IPV6

Reported by: eric_dtw Owned by: developers
Priority: normal Milestone: Chaos Calmer 15.05
Component: packages Version: Trunk
Keywords: dnsmasq odhcpd ipv6 dhcpv6 ra slaac Cc:


In attempting to get "native" dual stack support for Barrier Breaker, some feature of DNSMASQ were overlooked. As well as, ODHCPD does not have all of the same feature for either IPV4 or IPV6. They each have a little the other doesn't.

For small networks, DNSMASQ is still the winner and has more features to control its function than most of us could dream to need. For larger networks, ODHCPD targets real prefix delegations, lets say IPV6::/48 properly delegated to different buildings and floors with various firewall/security rules between departments.

OpenWRT users are significantly represented by residential and small-business users of one master router and maybe a few repeaters. We need a way to support the best of both use cases.

I have attached some major changes to /etc/init.d/dnsmasq that address this. If you uninstall ODHCPD, then init will configure DNSMASQ for RA/DHCP6. Also, the "router name" in the DNS is assigned using DNSMASQ internal facility, rather than the script. It may not be all complete, but it is a long way forward from BB.

See Also

Attachments (1)

dnsmasq (20.5 KB) - added by eric_dtw 3 years ago.
Revised /etc/init.d/dnsmasq for Better IPV6

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (4)

Changed 3 years ago by eric_dtw

Revised /etc/init.d/dnsmasq for Better IPV6

comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by jow

  • Resolution set to not_a_bug
  • Status changed from new to closed

Please send a proper patch according to SubmittingPatches to the development list.

comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by eric_dtw

  • Resolution not_a_bug deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

Okay. The file attached is not really intended to be "patch ready", and more of a working example to demonstrate concepts for the ticket. The script works for me in my use case, but likely doesn't accommodate all migration desires between IPV4 and IPV6. So I am looking more for a resolution from this ticket of (1) this a good direction for OpenWRT to go and thanks for the concept example, or (2) OpenWRT intends to drive more on ODHCPD and despite the working example, consensus is to go that way still.
(JOW, ticket opened again only to get resolution (1) or (2). Not trying to annoy anyone here. Feel free to re-close with a reasonable opinion entered. Thanks)

comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by jogo

  • Resolution set to not_a_bug
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

It still needs to go to the mailing list, especially if you want to get a proper review.

Add Comment

Modify Ticket

as closed .
The resolution will be deleted. Next status will be 'reopened'.

E-mail address and user name can be saved in the Preferences.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.