Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] doc issue: dhcp on multiple interfaces
On 4/26/18 2:50 PM, Geert Stappers wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:24:56PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: maybe I am too blind to see, but apparently something like dhcp-range=em1,10.0.0.10,10.0.0.254,12h dhcp-range=em2,10.0.1.10,10.0.1.254,12h is not mentioned in the man page. Is it possible that the interface part was lost? range 10.0.0.10...10.0.0.254 is for interface in that range range 10.0.1.10...10.0.1.254 is for interface in that range The interface "em1" has the IP address 10.0.0.2, i.e. it is not in this range. Same goes for em2. I would guess that dnsmasq looks at the netmask in this case? Regards Harri ___ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
[Dnsmasq-discuss] DHCP option 121, handling of interface address
I had to add DHCP option 121 to server an extra network to the clients in case one of the clients has to use USB tethering via the mobile phone. Therefore I added this line, and all is (almost) fine: dhcp-option=option:classless-static-route,$other_local_net/24,$interface_IP But it is not possible to set $interface_IP to 0.0.0.0 to indicate that dnsmasq should put in the IPv4 address of the interface from which it serves the DHCP requests. This is done for a few other DHCP options like default-router, TFTP server and the like. Is this just an oversight, or would there be any downside in handling the "wildcard" in "classless-static-route"? Olaf pgp6fgDXz7HHd.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP ___ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
