[Dnsmasq-discuss] Thanks and question

[A James Boswell]

Thanks Simon,
I understand the rational. Ideally though, I would like to be able to specify an arbitrary range rather than whole subnet for the reserved range, for example dynamic from .1 to .99 and reserved from .100 to .254. Not a neat CIDR boundary, so not possible at the moment and I have settles for the nearest /25 at .128 

I can't see any networking reason for requiring reserved addresses to be demarcated at a subnet boundary. As long as there are no collisions between dynamic and static ranges, they can share the same subnet in routing terms.

Your thoughts?

Regards

A. James Boswell
james at boswellbunch.com

> On 9 Feb 2015, at 10:40 pm, Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> 
> You can think of a dhcp-range statement as supplying two things: a
> subnet in which DHCP happens and a range of addresses within that
> subnet which can be dynamically allocated to DHCP clients.
> 
> It doesn't constrain dhcp-host entries to be within the dynamic range,
> only the subnet, so
> 
> dhcp-range=192.168.1.100,192.168.1.200,255.255.255
> dhcp-host=myhost,192.168.1.80
> 
> Is perfectly sensible: unknown hosts go into
> 192.168.1.100-192.168.1.200 and known hosts go elsewhere where they
> can't be interfered with by dynamic allocation, are amenable to
> different firewall rules, etc etc.
> 
> 
> dhcp-range=192.168.1.0.static,255.255.255.0
> 
> Just provides the subnet to enable the relevant dhcp-host entries,
> without providing any range for dynamic allocation, so unknown hosts
> will fail to get an address.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Simon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/02/15 03:14, A James Boswell wrote:
>> G’day, I only just came across dnsmasq and installed and
>> configured it yesterday. It’s great. Thank you.
>> 
>> My question. What is the reasoning behind dhcp-host static entries 
>> being subnets, not start and end ranges? The syntax on the man
>> page suggests start and end addresses should work, though the
>> description says subnet. Sure enough a range fails —test.
>> Fortunately I was close to a /25 boundary anyway, but is there some
>> reason it couldn’t work the other way?
>> 
>> Thanks again - it’s a really well structured, easy to configure 
>> solution for small networks. One that’s been sorely missing.
>> 
>> A. James Boswell james at boswellbunch.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss 
>> mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk 
>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> 
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJU2JylAAoJEBXN2mrhkTWimzkP/ilfV1dRFnmgLsGfrOWDAmA7
> EXmEF5qT4YKPcgV6U8PmVciohFdAWnho6vbeD5Hz8y7USyESWt9ALOq3jO7BcG2m
> 1JXZEIX9XoR258VIlgdE6iuGHU++UoOSqfTHmdVKWQNfZgARsmbYuBJQyW6bmbgP
> 0XwmzVuiGdLLmM9DcoTB415SPjaxwleIBKv8kGog9aOH4tusBofuhft7PQDJchIY
> /17RM3fyJuiOB11JeaRazwW0/0DCu/eFNbFcYGwWlZBvcPAlmNIBLAYi1trw+YrW
> eNq1DX+242IsOF8JrTl5pvEmwas35KzN9cF62ihzp9DcvzZ1zeTDNNWthp/6U/Wt
> D5CR/aniiEaYcD+RGr9NtWLcvzM6SMY7tvnJW2w+uFdx+PvYtcR9hgCpe4UPbM2R
> trsdJ0VfoI3Ag2FawOG7+a1piz39Hs/YG+O97VzIKs0kZbxNmoDkU9db6jDRoOqE
> w8WFDo1PsDnNUJ6q1I/nPQL/yro55DyoE8pj7YHobYVRvc7O181ZjtrCs1sNVJk4
> 1XEmT1eir1dkYmZritj08zjSrJvy1oD57q0OsMUVWME8VPSE57oacOWtsvHhjUIb
> FWKCVKxy3IXDN8tE+wT4tEsq6bYsPkZF9Wa6Fyfb38YVIPj0OZz1A5QUYa6/g0F6
> DZIDj88SvdItR5YD6vZH
> =/+WN
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss