[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