[Dnsmasq-discuss] DHCP Relay, assign address from other vlan, with no dhcp listening on it

SpiderX spiderx at spiderx.dp.ua
Tue Sep 13 11:17:37 BST 2011


On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On 13/09/11 10:27, Michael Rack wrote:
> > Am 12.09.2011 16:15, schrieb SpiderX:
> >> What I need is that dnsmasq assigns ip address (create DHCPOFFER
> >> packet) based on remote-id or/and circuit-id, and not on sub-option 5
> >> which will arrive only in RENEWING state.
> >> Is there any chance that dnsmasq will do this?
> >
> > 1. SUB-OPTION 5 is not only in RENEWING state, it is also available
> > within DISCORVER messages.
> >
> > 2. i don't think that dnsmasq will do this. The programm layout does not
> > use remote-id or/and circuit-id for the dhcp-range selection. DNSMASQ
> > tags the incoming request after valid dhcp-range was found. So your tags
> > based on remote-id or/and circuit-id are useless.
>
> These statements are both true.
> >
> > @simon: is there a possibility to add a option like "circuit-id" to the
> > --dhcp-range option? So when a DISCOVER-Message with circuit-id
> > receives, dnsmasq knows, which dhcp-range to choose. circuit-id should
> > take advance over other checks.
>
> Something like that could be done, but the correct way to do this is
> with subnet-select relay options, I'm not sure that adding a mechanism
> which is non-standard and a good way for people to get themselves into
> lots of trouble is the best way to do things.
>
> Simon.
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> > Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

If it can be done, it should be done :)
The reason why it should be done in my case not beacuse I'm lazy to
use sub-option 5, but because I just cannot use it.
My switch vendor doesnt support RFC5107, and that the reason why I
can't use dnsmasq, and I'm not the only one.

> I'm not sure that adding a mechanism which is non-standard and a good way for people to get themselves into
> lots of trouble is the best way to do things.
As for me, I will accept such troubles. To have working solution with
posibility of troubles is much better, that dont have it at all.



More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list