[Dnsmasq-discuss] Decouple enable-tftp and no-dhcp-interface

[Lonnie Abelbeck]

On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:

> On 23/06/13 20:34, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'd like to suggest that enable-tftp and no-dhcp-interface should be
>> decoupled.
>> 
>> Not only is it confusing that no-dhcp-interface also disables
>> enable-tftp for that interface, but it is sometimes desirable to
>> allow DNS and TFTP on an interface without DHCP.
>> 
>> Looking at "src/tftp.c" is seems there is no dependance on DHCP
>> except to walk the no-dhcp-interface args when HAVE_DHCP is defined.
>> 
>> Ideally, IMHO, enable-tftp should be independent from HAVE_DHCP and
>> add a new "no-tftp-interface" config that would be tested for
>> interface exceptions instead of no-dhcp-interface.
>> 
>> Reasonable ?
> 
> The rationale for the current state-of-the-world is that the TFTP server in dnsmasq is provided for the express purpose of doing netbooting, so it makes sense to do TFTP on the same interfaces/addresses as DHCP.
> 
> I'd like to keep that as-is, for backwards compatibility if no other reason, so I suggest that we could add new option --tftp-interface that would have a higher priority than no-dhcp-interface. SO, to do TFTP but NOT DHCP on eth0 you'd do
> 
> no-dhcp-interface=eth0
> tftp-interface=eth0
> 
> No existing configs would change meaning, and the common case wouldn't need to use the new option.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Simon.

To be clear, if in the above example eth1 had DHCP enabled, then TFTP would be served on both eth0 and eth1 ?

If so, would this be more clear ?
--
tftp-no-dhcp-interface=eth0
--
which would be a synonym for "no-dhcp-interface" but would mark that interface to allow TFTP.

I agree no change to existing configs is best.

Lonnie