On 28/03/13 16:02, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
On 28/03/2013 13:42, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 28/03/13 13:14, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
On 28/03/2013 12:58, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 28/03/13 12:26, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
I'm led to believe that v2.61 behaves as 'last instance sticks' I
know that 2.66rc2 still has first instance sticks. Maybe that helps.
OK, I'm confused. Are we just talking about --interface , or
--no-dhcp-interface too?
For both 2.61 and 2.66
Apologies Simon, I've not stated the 'problem' clearly, mainly because
I've had conflicting reports of problems/workarounds/solutions. The
final 'problem' is as follows:
If I have a config file that defines a dhcp option twice then in v2.61
the last instance of that same option sticks, whereas in 2.66test16 &
rc2 the first instance sticks and subsequent re-definitions get ignored.
eg:
dhcp-range=br0,192.168.235.21,192.168.235.254,255.255.255.0,720m
dhcp-option=br0,3,192.168.235.1
dhcp-option=br0,44,0.0.0.0
...
...
dhcp-option=br0,3,192.168.235.254
in 2.61, option 3 is 192.168.235.254, in 2.66 it stays as 192.168.235.1
In the situation where a router config gui has configured the first part
of the file and then someone wishes to manually append custom stuff
(again accessible via the gui) then in 2.66 overrides are no longer
possible. So a human wouldn't generate a config file such as above, but
an automated idiot may :-)
OK, that makes more sense, though I'm not sure why the change, again
it's not been deliberate. This is undefined behaviour though, so it's
more understandable that it's changed.
I think there's an easy workaround: Just remove the tag from the first
definition of option 3, so
dhcp-option=br0,3,192.168.235.1 becomes dhcp-option=3,192.168.235.1
It _is_ defined that if there are two available values for an option,
one with tag(s) and one with no tags, then the one with tags wins.
(provided matching tags are set, of course).
Cheers,
Simon.
Ahh, but there's the rub, the first instance of dhcp-option=br0,.......
is generated automatically by the router software and cannot be changed,
it's why we need to be able to override it.
Ok. will have to think harder about this, in that case.
But I'm now concerned about your previous email where I think interfaces
have been removed. Is it no longer possible to define dhcp range &
options on an interface by interface basis?
No. The interface:<interface> thing in dhcp-range is/was something else.
If you were not using that specific syntax, then there's no problem.
Cheers,
Simon.
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
