On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Tom Metro <[email protected]> wrote: > I looked through the list archives to see what was recommended for > running multiple instances of dnsmasq in a fail-over configuration, and > the answer seemed to be to run ISC DHCPd instead. > > My preference would be to stick with dnsmasq. I'm actually less > concerned with having redundant DHCP services than redundant DNS, but > given that the DHCP half of dnsmasq informs the DNS half of local hosts, > there's still a need to synchronize the leases among multiple instances. > Seeing as the slave instance wouldn't need to respond to DHCP packets, > it would greatly simplifies the fail-over coordination. > > Have you considered adding support for DHCP Failover Protocol > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-failover-12)? > > Has anyone rigged up a lease synchronization scheme external to dnsmasq > using the --dhcp-script feature (just mentioned in another thread) or > perhaps DBus?
I think it would have to be dbus, since the external lease script, even in leasefile-ro mode, can only push lease information to dnsmasq at startup. > > -Tom > > -- > Tom Metro > Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA > "Enterprise solutions through open source." > Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss >
