[Dnsmasq-discuss] MAN Page Link Broken? and redundancy question

Robert Boerner robert.boerner at gmail.com
Fri Sep 4 22:18:04 BST 2009

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the quick response.

I am in fact using a separate router as the gateway. I like the idea
of splitting the pool, but that brings up a follow-on question...what
about static reservations I have set? Can I simply have them on both?

That also brings up yet another question...is it 'wrong' to have
static reservations assigned to addresses that are within the normal
scope? I know best practice is to have them designated outside, but I
am trying to replace a Windows box in an environment where people have
been assigning static reservations within the regular DHCP scope for
years. I don't want to have to redo everything.

Thanks again for the help.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:23 PM,
richardvoigt at gmail.com<richardvoigt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Robert Boerner<robert.boerner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> First, it appears (at least to me) that as of right now the link to
>> the online version of the MAN page simply leads to a blank page
>> (http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html). Can
>> anyone else confirm?
> I have the same result (no content on that page).
>> Second, I tried looking through the mailing list and other pages but I
>> have (what I hope) a simple question about configuring dnsmasq:
>> I have the software running (very well I might add) on a Marvell
>> Sheevaplug. I ideally would like to have two of these inexpensive
>> devices running to provide redundancy. Is there a way to configure two
>> concurrently running instances of dnsmasq (one each on a physically
>> separate device) for the same DHCP scope so that if one instance fails
>> the other takes over? I saw this can be done with the ISC DHCP daemon
>> but I like dnsmasq better :-)
> You could split the address pool into two and configure half on each.
> Then during normal operations there will be a race to offer an
> address, the client will accept only one.  If one fails, the other
> will continue offering addresses.  If one runs out of addresses, the
> other continues to work fine.  The only problem would be if one fails
> and the other runs out of addresses.
> Are you using the dnsmasq machines as the gateway, or another router?
> That could become pretty important if you want redundancy (you
> actually have to transfer the address of the failed unit).
>> Thanks in advance for any help and thanks for your work on this application.
>> Bob Boerner
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
>> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list