On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote:
richardvo...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I think you can avoid that without loss of generality.
By DeMorgan's theorem, the AND and NOT operations currently available
are sufficient to define any expression. You just
richardvo...@gmail.com schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote:
richardvo...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Actually, instead of prohibiting use of tags set by tag-if for further
tag-if, I think it's more reasonable to execute the lines in order and
Jan 'RedBully' Seiffert wrote:
I see where this will all lead to ... a tag construction tool with dnf
generation and Quine–McCluskey minimizer.
Perfect! I look forward to the patch. My non-backpropagating tag-if
evaluator took 11 lines of code. I'll give you an allowance of double
that :-)
Hallo, Jan,
Du meintest am 18.02.10:
I see where this will all lead to ... a tag construction tool with
dnf generation and Quine?McCluskey minimizer.
Quine/McCluskey is an awful way to minimize DNF etc. Slow and greedy.
But that's another problem ...
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
Simon Kelley schrieb:
Jan 'RedBully' Seiffert wrote:
I see where this will all lead to ... a tag construction tool with dnf
generation and Quine–McCluskey minimizer.
Perfect! I look forward to the patch. My non-backpropagating tag-if
evaluator took 11 lines of code. I'll give you an
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Helmut Hullen hul...@t-online.de wrote:
Hallo, Jan,
Du meintest am 18.02.10:
I see where this will all lead to ... a tag construction tool with
dnf generation and Quine?McCluskey minimizer.
Quine/McCluskey is an awful way to minimize DNF etc. Slow and
ignacio.br...@belden.com wrote:
Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote on 16/02/2010 14:27:36:
fakeroot debian/rules binary
I found a problem when fakerooting (sorry for my ignorance) Do I need to
install additional tools containing this lib?:
Package libidn was not found in the
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote:
ignacio.br...@belden.com wrote:
Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote on 16/02/2010 14:27:36:
fakeroot debian/rules binary
I found a problem when fakerooting (sorry for my ignorance) Do I need to
install
richardvo...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I think you can avoid that without loss of generality.
By DeMorgan's theorem, the AND and NOT operations currently available
are sufficient to define any expression. You just need a way to do
grouping, which a syntax for setting one tag conditionally
Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote on 15/02/2010 22:19:21:
Maybe not. Please could you split the test up: use a dhcp-range without
tags, so that an address is always allocated, set log-dhcp, and check
which tags are set. (Look in syslog, the set of tags is printed there.)
That will
ignacio.br...@belden.com wrote:
Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote on 15/02/2010 22:19:21:
Maybe not. Please could you split the test up: use a dhcp-range without
tags, so that an address is always allocated, set log-dhcp, and check
which tags are set. (Look in syslog, the set of tags
Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote on 16/02/2010 10:38:56:
Ah, yes. That's a bug, a rather obvious face-plant bug ;-)
What version of Ubuntu are you using? I have test release which fixes
this and should solve the unicast-renewal problem and I can probably
send it to you as a
ignacio.br...@belden.com wrote:
Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote on 16/02/2010 10:38:56:
Ah, yes. That's a bug, a rather obvious face-plant bug ;-)
What version of Ubuntu are you using? I have test release which fixes
this and should solve the unicast-renewal problem and I can
Is your switch able to set the DHCP Server Identifier Override Suboption?
In my network i use this suboption to tell clients to unicast my
Relay-DHCP Server and not DNSMASQ directly. DNSMASQ supports this
Suboption.
@SIMON:
I don't think thats the right place to do some changes in your
21:02
Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] IP address based on switch port number
(option 82)
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Simon Kelley
si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote:
ignacio.br...@belden.com wrote:
Hello Simon
I had completely forgotten about the server-address-override option.
Thanks to Richard and Michael for reminding me about that. It is indeed
supported and should solve the unicast renewal problem.
Ignacio, why not configure you switch to relay all ports? Then you can
block broadcasts without
Hallo Michael,
No, my switches cannot set the dhcp
server identifier suboption
I just can't understand it, why you wish to seperate
DHCP-IP-Addresses
on each port?
This layer 2 option 82 is quite interesting
and used in Industrial Networks (factories or machinery for instance) where
time to
...@thekelleys.org.uk
To:
ignacio.br...@belden.com
Cc:
dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
Date:
14/02/2010 20:55
Subject:
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] IP address based
on switch port number (option 82)
ignacio.br...@belden.com wrote:
Hello Simon, Thanks fo such a quick answer! Yes I detected that a
bit
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote:
I had completely forgotten about the server-address-override option.
Thanks to Richard and Michael for reminding me about that. It is indeed
supported and should solve the unicast renewal problem.
Sounds like an
ignacio.br...@belden.com wrote:
Hello Simon,
Yes, you can do that: The AND function is in dhcp-range: set tags for
each switch and port and use a switch tag and a port tag in dhcp-range
dhcp-range=net:switch-1,net:port-1,192.168.7.1,192.168.7.4,255.255.255.0
I have problems with the
ignacio.br...@belden.com wrote:
Hello Simon, Thanks fo such a quick answer! Yes I detected that a bit
later and the tag is set now.
dhcp-range=net:ignacio,10.10.35.60,10.10.35.65
dhcp-circuitid=ignacio,b9:06:00:00:01:01:01:03,
dhcp-remoteid=ignacio,00:06:00:80:63:60:e1:64
BUT IT STILL
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote:
ignacio.br...@belden.com wrote:
Hello Simon, Thanks fo such a quick answer! Yes I detected that a bit
later and the tag is set now.
dhcp-range=net:ignacio,10.10.35.60,10.10.35.65
richardvo...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to have to think about code changes to fix this in the general
case. Are you able to compile and test new versions of dnsmasq?
ebtables or iptables can be used to match the source MAC address and
only accept inbound DHCP requests from the relay(s).
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Simon Kelley si...@thekelleys.org.uk wrote:
richardvo...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to have to think about code changes to fix this in the general
case. Are you able to compile and test new versions of dnsmasq?
ebtables or iptables can be used to match the
Hello List,
I try without success to assign always
the same IP (or range) per switch port (no matter the mac address, only
matters the port at which the client is connected)
To do this I use switches with dhcp
relay option 82 activated. So telling, any discover getting to dnsmasq
includes
ignacio.br...@belden.com wrote:
Hello List,
I try without success to assign always the same IP (or range) per switch
port (no matter the mac address, only matters the port at which the
client is connected)
To do this I use switches with dhcp relay option 82 activated. So
telling, any
address based
on switch port number (option 82)
ignacio.br...@belden.com wrote:
Hello List,
I try without success to assign always the same IP (or range) per
switch
port (no matter the mac address, only matters the port at which the
client is connected)
To do this I use switches
27 matches
Mail list logo
