Hi Richard, Thanks for the quick response.
I am in fact using a separate router as the gateway. I like the idea of splitting the pool, but that brings up a follow-on question...what about static reservations I have set? Can I simply have them on both? That also brings up yet another question...is it 'wrong' to have static reservations assigned to addresses that are within the normal scope? I know best practice is to have them designated outside, but I am trying to replace a Windows box in an environment where people have been assigning static reservations within the regular DHCP scope for years. I don't want to have to redo everything. Thanks again for the help. On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:23 PM, [email protected]<[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Robert Boerner<[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> First, it appears (at least to me) that as of right now the link to >> the online version of the MAN page simply leads to a blank page >> (http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html). Can >> anyone else confirm? > > I have the same result (no content on that page). > >> >> Second, I tried looking through the mailing list and other pages but I >> have (what I hope) a simple question about configuring dnsmasq: >> >> I have the software running (very well I might add) on a Marvell >> Sheevaplug. I ideally would like to have two of these inexpensive >> devices running to provide redundancy. Is there a way to configure two >> concurrently running instances of dnsmasq (one each on a physically >> separate device) for the same DHCP scope so that if one instance fails >> the other takes over? I saw this can be done with the ISC DHCP daemon >> but I like dnsmasq better :-) > > You could split the address pool into two and configure half on each. > Then during normal operations there will be a race to offer an > address, the client will accept only one. If one fails, the other > will continue offering addresses. If one runs out of addresses, the > other continues to work fine. The only problem would be if one fails > and the other runs out of addresses. > > Are you using the dnsmasq machines as the gateway, or another router? > That could become pretty important if you want redundancy (you > actually have to transfer the address of the failed unit). > >> >> Thanks in advance for any help and thanks for your work on this application. >> >> Bob Boerner >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss >> >
