On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 08:49:57AM -0200, Luis Kleber wrote:
> Em ter, 27 de nov de 2018 às 20:12, Geert Stappers escreveu:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 04:42:05PM -0200, Luis Kleber wrote:
> >     <snip/>
> > > dhcp-range=set:infra-70-subnet,100.101.1.11,100.101.1.64,600s
> > > dhcp-option=tag:infra-70-subnet,3,100.101.1.1
> > > dhcp-range=set:infra-71-subnet,100.101.2.11,100.101.2.64,600s
> > > dhcp-option=tag:infra-71-subnet,3,100.101.2.1
> > > dhcp-range=set:infra-72-subnet,100.98.98.11,100.98.98.64,600s
> > > dhcp-option=tag:infra-72-subnet,3,100.98.98.1
> >     <snip> infra-73 ... infra-92 </snip>
> > > dhcp-range=set:infra-93-subnet,100.103.8.11,100.103.8.64,600s
> > > dhcp-option=tag:infra-93-subnet,3,100.103.8.1
> > > dhcp-range=set:infra-94-subnet,100.104.1.11,100.104.1.64,600s
> > > dhcp-option=tag:infra-94-subnet,3,100.104.1.1
> > > dhcp-range=set:infra-95-subnet,100.96.96.11,100.96.96.64,600s
> > > dhcp-option=tag:infra-95-subnet,3,100.96.96.1
> >
> > Why?
> >
> 
> "Why" what?
> If the question is the all other dhcp-ranges (unused for this scenario),
> the answer is because in production case these other networks for each dhcp
> range exist. These other unused ranges for this test case, this cannot be a
> problem.
> 
> Thanks
 
No problem, no hardfeelings.

It was me who should have wrote in his initial reply


  Oops, that is a complex setup. Is really all the complexity needed?


Anyway: Feel free to post, do known that it is been readed.


Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
> this cannot be a problem.

_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

Reply via email to