On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Mariano Absatz <el.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 16:05, clemens fischer > <ino-n...@spotteswoode.dnsalias.org> wrote: > > Mariano Absatz wrote: > > > > (please don't top post) > Sorry about that... I usually follow the "posting convention" I see > and since richardvoigt had top-posted, I did the same. > Bottom posting is even worse than top posting. I inline post in cases like this where I'm directly addressing a particular paragraph or sentence, otherwise top post. Otherwise it may look like you've simply quoted another sender and not added anything of your own. > > > > >> So, given that, I may write down the static IP/hostname assignments in > >> every dnsmasq server and that would give the correct name in every > >> server. > >> > >> All would have the same MAC/IP/hostname configuration in dnsmasq.conf > >> so even if there are dhcp collisions (e.g. because 2 servers got a > >> broadcast request), they would all reply the same configuration and > >> the clients should be happy enough, would they? > It's not even necessary that all servers offer the same configuration, the client will pick one DHCPOFFER to reply to. > > > > I think richardvoigt meant to separate the configurations of the DHCP > > servers to make them ignore requests they don't have entries for, if > > that is possible. > No, that wouldn't be redundant and that's not what I'm suggesting. Of course I do suggest an automated solution for pushing configuration updates to all the servers from a single source. > > > > I was going to suggest splitting the network into a number of smaller > > sub networks connected by switches, and maybe using dhcp-relay, another > > fine product of simon. > This still puts all the load on a single server, which was the original concern. > > Well... the 50 machines are actually connected to 5 different switches > with 1Gbps uploads to a main switch where the 2 or 3 servers also > connect with 1Gbps. > > I don't need subnetting among the machines (and I think I wouldn't > like to do it, because that might add up routing problems) so I don't > see an advantage in relaying dhcp... > > Anyway, do you think that configuring static dhcp mac/ip/hostname > assignments in a redundant way in the servers and the ip/hostname > relationship also in /etc/hosts is a bad thing to do? > It's perfectly fine. Potential drawbacks are having dynamic leases scattered all over or having configs get out of sync. > > Thanx for your answers (and patience). > > Regards. > > -- > Mariano Absatz - El Baby > www.clueless.com.ar > > _______________________________________________ > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss >