[Dnsmasq-discuss] load balanced dnsmasq?

Mariano Absatz el.baby at gmail.com
Tue Jul 20 21:17:02 BST 2010

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 16:05, clemens fischer
<ino-news at spotteswoode.dnsalias.org> wrote:
> Mariano Absatz wrote:
> (please don't top post)
Sorry about that... I usually follow the "posting convention" I see
and since richardvoigt had top-posted, I did the same.

>> So, given that, I may write down the static IP/hostname assignments in
>> every dnsmasq server and that would give the correct name in every
>> server.
>> All would have the same MAC/IP/hostname configuration in dnsmasq.conf
>> so even if there are dhcp collisions (e.g. because 2 servers got a
>> broadcast request), they would all reply the same configuration and
>> the clients should be happy enough, would they?
> I think richardvoigt meant to separate the configurations of the DHCP
> servers to make them ignore requests they don't have entries for, if
> that is possible.
> I was going to suggest splitting the network into a number of smaller
> sub networks connected by switches, and maybe using dhcp-relay, another
> fine product of simon.

Well... the 50 machines are actually connected to 5 different switches
with 1Gbps uploads to a main switch where the 2 or 3 servers also
connect with 1Gbps.

I don't need subnetting among the machines (and I think I wouldn't
like to do it, because that might add up routing problems) so I don't
see an advantage in relaying dhcp...

Anyway, do you think that configuring static dhcp mac/ip/hostname
assignments in a redundant way in the servers and the ip/hostname
relationship also in /etc/hosts is a bad thing to do?

Thanx for your answers (and patience).


Mariano Absatz - El Baby

More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list