DHCP for multiple subnets (was: Re: Routing and bandwidth problem)
Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha
strange at nsk.no-ip.org
Mon Jun 14 13:55:19 UTC 2004
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:17:34AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 06:36 6/14/2004, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 05:04:47PM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> >> However, what I said above refers to the fact that dhcpd *must* know
> >> every subnet configured on the box even if it does not assign addresses
> >> that subnet or listen on that interface. Why? Apparently (according to
> >> maintainers) matching the subnet with the interface is how it determines
> >> with certainty which address to assign.
> >No, there's no need to have a subnet configured for an interface that
> >the server isn't listening on.
> >It would be a nightmare otherwise, in my case, as the eth2 interface is
> >connected to the internet with a dynamic ip, and it often changes
> I'll try to be a little more specific: if you want dhcpd to accurately
> assign addresses to requests coming in on any or nearly any interface, what
> I was told by some of its maintainers just a few days ago is that the
> correct procedure is to let dhcpd know about any and all
> statically-configured subnets on that box. For example, even if I don't
> assign IP addresses on my Internet link with a static IP address, dhcpd
> would like me to let it know about that subnet anyway to avoid confusion
> (subnet without range).
> Better for you that way?
Well, I won't argue with the maintainers, though I can't figure out what
confusion could be caused by an interface the daemon never sees.
More information about the fedora-list