On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:55 AM Simon Kelley <si...@thekelleys.org.uk> wrote: > > On 01/04/2019 16:33, Ryan Gray wrote: > > Update on testing the new shared-network configuration: My lab > > network is the happiest network right now. This is great. > > > > A few clarifications: I needed to set the source part of the > > shared-network parameter to the IP of my relay, not the IP or > > interface of my dnsmasq server. > > That's expected (and documented) if you're running a relay. In this > case, the only information about which physical network the client is on > is the relay address inserted into the DHCP request by the relay.
Totally makes sense. Thank you for all of your work on this. Seriously, this addition is greatly appreciated. > > My dnsmasq server is at 10.200.200.1 > > which is bound to its br0 interface. My dhcp relay (Brocade switch) > > holds the gateways for VLANs that need DHCP. The one I'm testing is a > > vlan with an IP interface of 192.168.127.254/24 and a subinterface > > 192.168.128.254/24, so all requests from that VLAN are coming from > > 192.168.127.254. > > > > I added this to my config: > > > > shared-network=192.168.127.254,192.168.128.0 > > > > And it works! I am even successfully handing out some addresses based > > on nothing other than their subscriber-id (whole different talk show), > > and it's now working. > > > > What if I know that an interface is going to have multiple 'gateway' > > IPs, but I'm not sure which one the switch/router will be using as its > > source. In the example above, if I don't know whether or not the > > requests will be coming from .127.254 or .128.254, can I safely just > > have a 'shared-network' config line for each even though one will be a > > bit redundant (shared-network=192.168.127.254,192.168.127.0)? > > Yes, that should work fine. > > > Cheers, > > Simon. > > > > > So far, this is really great. Thank you so much. > > > > > > Regards, > > Ryan Gray > > > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 5:13 PM Simon Kelley <si...@thekelleys.org.uk> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 30/03/2019 18:33, Ryan Gray wrote: > >>> TLDR; How do I use "shared-network" exactly? :) > >>> > >>> Everything compiled and is up and running with no changes to my > >>> existing configs or method of execution. I'm a little unclear about > >>> how to hold this tool. > >>> > >>> Assuming a router interface of 192.168.4.126/25 and no sub interfaces, > >>> I typically do something like this: > >>> > >>> dhcp-range=set:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",192.168.4.1,192.168.4.125,255.255.255.128,1h > >>> tag-if=set:internet-pool,tag:internet-192_168_4_0_25 > >>> dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",3,192.168.4.126 > >>> dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",1,255.255.255.128 > >>> dhcp-option=tag:"internet-192_168_4_0_25",5,8.8.8.8 > >>> > >>> If I add another gateway IP to that router interface (I use "gateway > >>> IP" loosely), 192.168.5.0/24 and and assuming the router with the > >>> ip-helper configured is, by default, going to say "hey, I'm > >>> 192.168.4.126". With ISC, having ranges for 192.168.4.1-125 and > >>> 192.168.5.1-253 within the block of config that defines a > >>> shared-network would make things copacetic. > >>> > >>> The question: In this scenario, am I to start dnsmasq with > >>> "--shared-network=192.168.4.126,192.168.5.0" ? If so, I'm not > >>> sure if my subnet definition strategy above is going to stay the same > >>> because I'm not sure how dnsmasq is going to treat this in regards to > >>> tags. Perhaps I'm just looking at this sideways. > >>> > >> > >> > >> You need to have something like > >> > >> shared-network=192.168.4.1,192.168.5.0 > >> > >> assuming that the interface on the machine running dnsmasq is 192.168.4.1 > >> > >> or > >> > >> shared-network=eth0,192.168.5.0 > >> > >> assuming that the interface is so-named. > >> > >> Either of these will allow dnsmasq to allocate addresses on the sunnet > >> that includes 192.168.5.0, but to make that happen you need a dhcp-range > >> which tells it which addresses are available. This dhcp-range MUST have > >> the netmask: normally dnsmasq can figure out the netmask, but it doesn't > >> have enough information in this case. > >> > >> You can set tag in the dhcp-range, as before, and use it to control the > >> DHCP options sent to the client (which should include router, as the > >> normal default route option won't be sent. > >> > >> > >> Simon. > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:13 PM Simon Kelley <si...@thekelleys.org.uk> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 29/03/2019 20:36, Ryan Gray wrote: > >>>>> Hello other humans, > >>>>> > >>>>> First, Simon Kelly, thank you for dnsmasq. > >>>>> > >>>>> I noticed here > >>>>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2018q4/012700.html > >>>>> that there was discussion of the possibility of supporting behavior like > >>>>> ISC's 'shared-network'. Did this go anywhere? I would absolutely use > >>>>> this and would be happy to perform any testing that would help. I didn't > >>>>> see other mentions of this so I thought I'd ask. > >>>>> > >>>>> Dead serious, this would be spectacular. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Today (actually, yesterday) is your lucky day: > >>>> > >>>> http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commit;h=ae5b7e04a1025167f1b80840e61432a3cea9625c > >>>> > >>>> Do please test! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Simon > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Ryan Gray > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > >>>>> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > >>>>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > >>>> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > >>>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss