[libvirt] dnsmasq supporting RA instead of radvd patch

[Doug Goldstein]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Gene Czarcinski <gene at czarc.net> 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