On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:17:34AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > At 06:36 6/14/2004, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote: > >On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 05:04:47PM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > >> However, what I said above refers to the fact that dhcpd *must* know > >about > >> every subnet configured on the box even if it does not assign addresses > >on > >> that subnet or listen on that interface. Why? Apparently (according to > >its > >> maintainers) matching the subnet with the interface is how it determines > >> with certainty which address to assign. > > > >No, there's no need to have a subnet configured for an interface that > >the server isn't listening on. > > > >It would be a nightmare otherwise, in my case, as the eth2 interface is > >connected to the internet with a dynamic ip, and it often changes > >networks. > > I'll try to be a little more specific: if you want dhcpd to accurately > assign addresses to requests coming in on any or nearly any interface, what > I was told by some of its maintainers just a few days ago is that the > correct procedure is to let dhcpd know about any and all > statically-configured subnets on that box. For example, even if I don't > assign IP addresses on my Internet link with a static IP address, dhcpd > would like me to let it know about that subnet anyway to avoid confusion > (subnet without range). > > Better for you that way? Well, I won't argue with the maintainers, though I can't figure out what confusion could be caused by an interface the daemon never sees. Regards, Luciano Rocha
