On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Gene Czarcinski <gene@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have a working patch to have dnsmasq support RA instead of radvd. > However, something has come up and it will be a week to ten days before I > can get it in shape to submit. > > The current patch has three variables added to the _virNetworkObj structure: > dnsmasqRA flag and both major and minor values for the dnsmasq's version. > > I use "dnsmasq --version" and then parse out the major/minor version values. > If major>2, then dnamsqFA=1. If major=2 and minor>=63, then dnsmasqRA=1. > For all other cases, dnsmasqRA=0. > > Code is added to the radvd functions which checks dnsmasqRA and exits if it > is 1. > > Code is added to the dnsmasq configuration file if dnsmasqRa=1. If > dhcp-range or dhcp-hosts is specified for IPv6, then enable-ra is added for > stateful (dhcpv6). Otherwise, a special > "dhcp-range=<ipv6-subnet-address>,ra-only" so that the ManagedFlag will be > off in the RA packets for stateless operation. > > OK, how does that sound? Everyone comfortable with that? > > Another thing is that I plan to add a test such that if the radvd executable > is not valid, the dnsmasqRA=1. > > As I was doing this, I also looked through the libvirt.spec file. My, what a > wonderful example of wizardly that is. Anyway, I thought some updates may > be in ortder: > > - increase the minimum version for dnsmasq from 2.41 to 2.48. > > - why is radvd required for rpmbuild? > > - in light of my patch, make radvd an optional runtime requirement. I am not > a spec file expert by any means but there must be a way to not require radvd > if dnsmasq >- 2.63. > > Comments? > > Gene I'm still not thrilled that you're pushing forward with requiring 2.63 + a few patches backported from 2.64 into 2.63 and only checking against 2.63. -- Doug Goldstein -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list