Please ignore me, I failed to notice that Francis had already answered. On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 8:45 PM Darren Ankney <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dee-Jay, > > In Kea, the subnet is just a label. You should be able to do > something like this: > "subnet4": [ > { > "subnet": "192.168.10.0/30", > "id": 1 > }, > { > "subnet": "192.168.10.1/30", > "id": 2 > } > ] > > However, kea-dhcp4 may then complain about overlapping pools. Please > do try this in a test lab before trying to use in production. > > Thank you, > Darren Ankney > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 2:56 AM Dee-Jay Logozzo > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I am unable to configure KEA to serve identical subnets to different > > networks. > > > > We have an MPLS Service-Provider style network I am configuring that would > > benefit from being able to provide DHCP for different segregated network > > segments (vrfs) using overlapping (or possibly duplicate) subnets. > > These segregated vrfs are able to talk back to the KEA instance via > > multi-homed DHCP Relays living in both the customer's vrf, and our > > dhcp-management vrf. > > We are using Option 82 (sub-option 2) set individually by each DHCP relay > > to distinguish between each network within the KEA DHCP server. > > Everything is working as expected with this configuration, the segregated > > DHCP clients are able to receive their specific allocation as per Option 82 > > (using flex-id within KEA). > > However, if we configure two different and segregated network pools to use > > the same subnet within the KEA kea-dhcp4.conf configuration file, KEA > > refuses to start with a 'DHCP4_INIT_FAIL failed to initialize Kea server: > > configuration error using file 'kea-dhcp4.conf': subnet with the prefix of > > '192.168.10.0/30' already exists (kea-dhcp4.conf:62:7)' error. > > > > As the IP subnets we use for the different network segments are often > > allocations from our customers, the likelihood for subnet collision is > > inevitable, but as they are segregated networks that does not cause any > > issues. > > The only problem is that KEA refuses to start with such a configuration. > > > > Is this a supported configuration that I am missing the obvious solution > > for? Are there any available workarounds for my use-case? Are there any > > other solutions for such an issue? > > We have considered running multiple distinct KEA instances, one for each > > customer with dedicated configuration, however this is undesirable as it > > greatly increases both the network design and system provisioning logic > > required for the rest of our system, as well as reduces the system > > resiliency as each customer/network-segment would need its own > > load-balance/HA group instead of being able to pool all those server (or > > vm) resources into one larger load-balance/HA group. > > We would much prefer to be able to have one KEA configuration covering > > everything. > > > > Regards. > > > > Dee-Jay > > > > > > Dee-Jay Logozzo > > > > IT Security Architect > > > > URSYS PTY LTD > > > > Level 1 / 459 – 461 Parramatta Road > > > > Leichhardt 2040 NSW > > > > E: [email protected] > > > > T: 02 8745 2841 > > > > W: URSYS.com.au > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. > > Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. > > > > To unsubscribe visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/kea-users. > > [email protected] -- ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
To unsubscribe visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/kea-users. [email protected]
