[Dnsmasq-discuss] clients getting wrong gateway
klyons45 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 29 14:29:28 BST 2017
That is correct we are using dhcp-relay on our switches
My concern with removing them completely is that the devices will no longer
respond to ping, we use a Web based systems to send dat to them (they are
label printers) that depends on the device to be ping-able to send the
print jobs to them.
As for tagging - Are you saying i would be able to tag the correct gateway
to correspond with my Option 82 statements? below is part of my
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk>
> On 28/06/17 13:25, Keith Lyons wrote:
> > I have Dnsmasq configured for option 82 for three different subents:
> > 10.192.4.x, 10.192.5.x and 10.192.9.x, all of the clients get the proper
> > IP's as expected via the Option 82 statements, but the 10.192.5 and
> > 10.192.9.x clients are getting the Gateway for the 10.19.4.x subnet.
> > We are using Juniper switches and they are setup for DHCP relay, and
> > only one nic on the dnsmasq instance. Dnsmasq is running on a Centos 7
> > virtual machine.
> > For each subnet declared I am declaring the corresponding gateway like
> > dhcp-option=option:router,10.192.4.1
> > dhcp-option=option:router,10.192.5.1
> > dhcp-option=option:router,10.192.9.1
> > Any insight on how to do this so that the clients each get the proper
> > gateway would be greatly appreciated.
> > I can post the full conf file if that would be helpful
> > Thanks,
> > Keith
> The solution might be a simple as removing the
> dhcp-option=option:router,....... lines completely. If the DHCP relay is
> running on the router (and it sounds like it is) then the defaults will
> just do the right thing.
> Failing that, you're going to need to learn about DHCP tags, and
> selecting the correct router option using tags set from the option 82 data.
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss