Camaleón wrote: > Niklas Jakobsson wrote: > > I found this post to the dhcp-users mailing list: > > https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2011-July/013440.html > > W-o-w... that's incredible. > So it is not working even in the upstream dhcpd? :-o
It may be unintuitive but ignoring client identifier is incorrect. That is why patching to do so isn't accepted upstream. Ignoring client identifier violates the protocol. See RFC 2131. Now that doesn't mean that in restricted cases it isn't beneficial to violate some protocols. I violate protocols! (I want that tshirt by the way. :-) Expecially when it suits me. But it does prevent it from being general purpose and certainly should not be the default. A typical suggestion for people provisioning a large number of systems would be to identify PXE clients using vendor-class-identifier and assign those a short lease time so that those addresses expire quickly to keep from depleting the pool. > > It adds a new option ignore-client-uids to dhcpd. I applied the patch > > and recompiled my dhcp-server and it works exactly as intended. > > > > So, my problem is solved... > > Good to know, and thanks for posting the above URI and confirming the > patch works. What scares me is to see no replies to the user who posted > the message on the dhcpd mailing list... Search for Yedidyah Bar-David (aka Didi) single lease dhcp patch and you should get to various discussions going back several years. This isn't a new topic. It comes up periodically concerning booting multiple different operating systems and having each system assigned its own address. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
