Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] static lease issues?

2018-11-06 Thread Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant


> On 6 Nov 2018, at 20:44, Simon Kelley  wrote:
> 
> Look at the tags on the first and second DHCPDISCOVERs. The first one is
> in "known" and the second is "known-othernet".
> 
> "known" means that the host has a dhcp-host or similar configuration
> which provides an address, and the address in in scope for the network
> it's talking from. "known-othernet" means the same, but the the address
> is NOT in scope.
> 
> That probably explains the DHCPNAK too.
> 
> The question is "what's changed". difficult to tell. Maybe the netmask
> on the interface?

Thanks Simon.  I noticed the ‘othernet’ tag but didn’t quite understand why it 
would be applied.  Have asked person affected for more clues :-)


Cheers,

Kevin D-B

012C ACB2 28C6 C53E 9775  9123 B3A2 389B 9DE2 334A

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


Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] static lease issues?

2018-11-06 Thread Simon Kelley
On 05/11/2018 03:30, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
> Hi Simon, Hi List,
> 
> I’m hearing rumblings from the openwrt community that something isn’t right 
> with static leases.   The behaviour manifests itself as the statically 
> assigned host being unable to renew its lease.  e.g.
> 
> -this is okay
> Nov  4 15:29:29 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 424644159 available DHCP 
> range: 192.168.0.100 -- 192.168.0.199
> Nov  4 15:29:29 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 424644159 client provides 
> name: sylvester
> Nov  4 15:29:29 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 424644159 
> DHCPDISCOVER(eth0.54) 00:11:22:33:44:55
> Nov  4 15:29:29 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 424644159 tags: lan, known, 
> eth0.54

> Nov  4 15:29:29 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 424644159 
> DHCPOFFER(eth0.54) 192.168.0.12 00:11:22:33:44:55
> -but later
> 
> Nov  4 15:52:32 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 53015875 available DHCP 
> range: 192.168.0.100 -- 192.168.0.199
> Nov  4 15:52:32 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 53015875 client provides 
> name: sylvester
> Nov  4 15:52:32 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 53015875 
> DHCPREQUEST(eth0.54) 192.168.0.12 00:11:22:33:44:55
> Nov  4 15:52:32 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 53015875 DHCPNAK(eth0.54) 
> 192.168.0.12 00:11:22:33:44:55 address not available
> Nov  4 15:52:32 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 53015875 broadcast response
> Nov  4 15:52:32 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 53015875 sent size:  1 
> option: 53 message-type  6
> Nov  4 15:52:32 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 53015875 sent size:  4 
> option: 54 server-identifier  192.168.0.254
> Nov  4 15:52:32 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 53015875 sent size: 21 
> option: 56 message  61:64:64:72:65:73:73:20:6e:6f:74:20:61:76...
> Nov  4 15:52:32 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 1321333264 available DHCP 
> range: 192.168.0.100 -- 192.168.0.199
> Nov  4 15:52:32 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 1321333264 client provides 
> name: sylvester
> Nov  4 15:52:36 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 1321333264 
> DHCPDISCOVER(eth0.54) 00:11:22:33:44:55
> Nov  4 15:52:36 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 1321333264 tags: lan, 
> known-othernet, eth0.54
> Nov  4 15:52:36 192.168.0.254 dnsmasq-dhcp[2378]: 1321333264 
> DHCPOFFER(eth0.54) 192.168.0.190 00:11:22:33:44:55
> 
> I have yet to see this behaviour personally, so I’m putting this out there as 
> a) anyone else b) any ideas on debugging?
> 
> 


Look at the tags on the first and second DHCPDISCOVERs. The first one is
in "known" and the second is "known-othernet".

"known" means that the host has a dhcp-host or similar configuration
which provides an address, and the address in in scope for the network
it's talking from. "known-othernet" means the same, but the the address
is NOT in scope.

That probably explains the DHCPNAK too.

The question is "what's changed". difficult to tell. Maybe the netmask
on the interface?


Cheers,

Simon.

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


Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Chainloading a more featureful iPXE from a limited iPXE

2018-11-06 Thread Mark Gardner
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:16 AM john doe  wrote:

> Not strictly an answer; have you considered qemu?:
>

Thanks for your suggestion. I've used qemu but prefer VirtualBox.

Even using qemu, I am still interested in a way to chainload a more
featureful iPXE from a less featureful one using dnsmasq.

Mark
-- 
Mark Gardner
--


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss