Experimentation. I would like to try a machine or two with only ipv6, and since dnsmasq is already bound to 53, it'll have to do. :)
It is a simple function. If a single AAAA is requested and the reply has 0 answers, forward a modified query for an A. Then, convert the A to AAAA by adding prefix 64:FF9B:: This may not fit dnsmasq now, or need to officially be included, but if the IPv6 ever catches on, this method has my vote. I guess a more complete BIND server could run on my router, but I have not yet gave up on repurposing the one I am using now. :) -- Scott On 2/11/11, Bill C Riemers <[email protected]> wrote: > Really, you only need DNS64/NAT64 if you want to completely eliminate IPv4 > in your network. With a dual stack, e.g. using both, it is completely > unnecessary. I would say if you do need them, they are completely > different functions than what DNSMASQ provide. As such, they should be > just completely different code. > > Bill > > > On 02/11/2011 11:20 AM, Simon Kelley wrote: >> Scott Nicholas wrote: >>> Experimenting at home with IPv6... Would like to try DNS64/NAT64 and >>> dnsmasq is the logical choice to continue my DNS needs since it's >>> already used on my OpenWRT home routers. >>> >>> I read over some code a bit before bed, and believe I should have a >>> hack together in 2-3 days time that covers just the "Well Known >>> Prefix" (currently 64:FF9B::/96) with constant RDATA for PTRs. I >>> believe this to be the setup most likely for home routers. Then it's >>> simply a single command-line switch to enable DNS64 behavior or not. >>> No worries about other prefixes for me at this point. >>> >>> Tho before proceeding, was there any other work done with this by >>> anyone? Shouldn't take much I think to implement _after_ I learn at >>> least how a few things are working.. Looking to throw some ideas >>> around. I'm more a hacker/tinkerer than a programmer but I've a draft >>> to follow so it shouldn't be too whack ;) >>> >>> >> There was a brief conversation about this subject here: >> >> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2010q4/004635.html >> >> The conclusion seems to be that it's a red-herring for dnsmasq, is that >> right? (I don't know anything about DNS64 and have no opinion). >> >> >> Simon. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss >
