[Dnsmasq-discuss] Thanks and question

[richardvoigt at gmail.com]

You're imagining the "reserved range".

The --dhcp-host configuration option of dnsmasq will reserve an address.
--dhcp-range=static will not.

Simon just explained that adding a pool automatically starts serving static
addresses in the remainder of the subnet, so your "dynamic from .1 to .99
and reserved from .100 to .254" case is covered by
--dhcp-range=x.y.z.1,x.y.z.99,255.255.255.0

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:17 PM, A James Boswell <james at boswellbunch.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20150210/8149efc0/attachment-0001.html>