Fred Wright wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Melvin Backus wrote:
>>get an address. I see your point about leases not surviving reboots. Does
>>that apply only to the CD version or the generic-pc and soekris versions too?
> It certainly applies to the Soekris version AFAIK, because CF has a
> limited number of write cycles. It would probably be acceptable to write
> something to CF prior to rebooting (I think it already has a kludge like
> that for DynDNS), but that only helps *orderly* reboots.
> The main problem on a CF-based system is that the dhcpd doesn't separate
> the two different levels of persistency. The RFCs don't require *leases*
> to survive server reboots, but say that every effort should be made to
> insure that the *mappings* survive. Thus, if the server crashes, a client
> may lose it's lease, but when it gets another one it should have the same
> address as before.
> Since mappings only change rarely, writing them to CF would be
> acceptable. But keeping *lease* information updated on CF would wear it
> out. Unfortunately, AFAIK the current dhcpd keeps both kinds of
> information in one file.
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Adam Nellemann wrote:
>>Note also that any static mappings are NOT allowed to lie within the
>>choosen dynamic IP range, so it is not an option to use all the
>>dynamic IPs for the static mappings.
> There's no reason in principle for this restriction. It might be worth a
> warning, but the dynamic assignment could certainly skip over any
> "obstacles". I don't know if that's a dhcpd restriction or just a
> m0n0wall restriction.
>>What is needed, is some way of telling m0n0wall not to dole out any
>>dynamic IPs, but only honor requests from the MACs in the list of
> This is supported by dhcpd itself - one simply omits the
> "range" parameter from dhcpd.conf.
I suspected as much. That makes it a simple matter of either allowing
the range fields to be empty, which should then be translated by the
php script to an omission of the range parameter, or a checkbox
acomplishing the same thing.
But I still want to note that I'm not pushing hard to get such a
feature since, as mentioned before, I think I can live with a single
dynamic IP hanging around unused, however "untidy" it may be.
I'm not quite following the other discussion in this thread. What is
the need for a lease/mapping that survives a reboot (or more
correctly, a crash)? And isn't this what the static mappings are for
(they should certainly survive any kind of crash, altough the lease
would still have to be renewed I guess, but again I don't see the harm