I'd say it's a fairly large change, and doesn't really fit with the
typical dnsmasq use-case. If I was you I'd be looking a KEA to see if
it's supported or could be supported. Of the Open Source DHCP servers,
that would seem to be the best fit for this sort of complex "enterprise"
functionality.
Simon.
On 8/21/25 12:59, Kevin wrote:
Hello.
Your statement is correct, it’s definitely a working solution but it can become
a hassle to orchestrate (spawning / configuring / monitoring them all, …)
This thread was mainly created to trigger a discussion and see if, somehow,
incorporating a concept of tenancy as a native feature would interest you / the
community ?
Thank you for your time
On 20 Aug 2025, at 16:49, Simon Kelley <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/18/25 12:49, Kevin wrote:
Hello
We need to implement multi tenancy at the DHCP level. It means the same subnet
(e.g 10.0.0.0/24) might be used by several clients and both should be able to
get a lease for 10.0.0.1.
We planned to implement this by relying on the Circuit-Id to help us
distinguish which subnet to choose from.
Unfortunately, we did not manage to make it work. Can you confirm this feature
(reusing the same subnet several times) is not currently possible?
Is it something you would be interested to implement / get implemented?
Thanks for your time
It's probably possible to do this by running multiple dnsmasq processes.
The comments about circuit-id imply that you're using a DHCP relay between the
client subnets and the DHCP server. Is that correct? If so can you configure
your relays to relay to non-standard ports?
Cheers,
Simon.
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
