[Dnsmasq-discuss] Query about solving a DHCPNAK issue

Simon Kelley simon at thekelleys.org.uk
Mon Feb 2 22:30:39 GMT 2015


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 02/02/15 22:20, Brian Haley wrote:

> The one thing I'm curious about is if dnsmasq is restarted while a
> VM holds a lease, how will it respond?  As someone else has
> pointed-out to me - isc-dhcp will respond with a DHCPNAK in that
> case, and wondered why there would be a difference with dnsmasq.
> Different interpretation of an RFC?


If by "dnsmasq is restarted" you mean "dnsmasq is restarted and
therefore has its lease database deleted", then the RFC says that if a
server gets a renewal for an unknown lease, it should return DHCPNAK.
That's what dnsmasq does _unless_ --dhcp-authoritative is set, when
instead it quietly re-creates the lease.

dhcp-authoritative gives permission to dnsmasq to violate the RFC in a
way which is useful in certain circumstances.


Cheers,

Simon.



> 
> I'll test it anyways.
> 
> -Brian
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=1gj+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list