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 Dnsmasqfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss