On 19/07/2018 21:34, Simon Kelley wrote:
This generates multiple instance of the DHCP option 121 in the DHCP
reply packet, which isn't strictly legal.
What makes you think it's not legal?
RFC3442 makes no mention of it not being legal and RFC3396 describes how
multiple instances of options sho
Hi,
I have dnsmasq set to be a DHCPv6 and DHCPv6 server for my local
network. Here is the relevant part of the configuration:
interface=vlan1
interface=vlan2
interface=vlan3
interface=vlan4
interface=vlan5
dhcp-authoritative
dhcp-range=interface:vlan1,10.1.0.2,10.1.255.253,1h
dhcp-range=inter
On 2018-07-20 09:01, Michael Marley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have dnsmasq set to be a DHCPv6 and DHCPv6 server for my local network.
> Here is the relevant part of the configuration:
>
> interface=vlan1
> interface=vlan2
> interface=vlan3
> interface=vlan4
> interface=vlan5
> dhcp-authoritative
> dh
On 20/07/18 08:55, Roy Marples wrote:
> On 19/07/2018 21:34, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> This generates multiple instance of the DHCP option 121 in the DHCP
>> reply packet, which isn't strictly legal.
>
> What makes you think it's not legal?
> RFC3442 makes no mention of it not being legal and RFC3396
One line patch to log DHCPCONFIM failure applied. That seems sensible.
Thanks for the suggestion, and apologies for leading you up a blind alley.
Cheers,
Simon.
On 20/07/18 15:43, Michael Marley wrote:
> On 2018-07-20 09:01, Michael Marley wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have dnsmasq set to be a DHC
