Yes, the two (10.1.0.0/16 and 195.x.x.0/24)subnets are on the same phisical interface. The dnsmasq accessible over a separate one (10.0.0.0/16).The DHCP relay itsef is an IP gateway between all the subnets.
T. "[email protected]" <[email protected]> írta: >2011/3/19 Takács Balázs <[email protected]>:> > Dear all,> >> > I have a setup where there are two (or more) separate subnets behind a DHCP > relay.> >> > DHCP relay> > |------------| |-------------|> > 10.1.0.1/16|eth1 |10.0.0.0/16|Dnsmasq sever|> > --------------| eth2|-----------| |> > 195.x.x.1/24|eth1.1 | | |> > |------------| |-------------|> >> >> > The relay sends all the request from 10.1.0.1 IP address. The default subnet > for clients is the 10.1.0.0. This works ok.> > Based on client mac address I would like to place some clients in > 195.x.x.0/24 (public ip)subnet.> > I have set both the pools for 10.1.0.0 and 195.x.x.0 subnets in dnsmasq.conf > and placed mac address ip address pairs to /etc/ethers file for clients have > to get public address. But the specified clients still get ip from 10.1.0.0 > pool. Is there a possibility to force dnsmasq to ignore the DHCP relay > address and try to give out address even in case of subnet missmatch?> > Just to be sure, you're saying both these subnets are used on the same> logical network (i.e. they can reach each other directly without> passing through a router)?> > >> > Thank you in advance,> >> > T.> >> >> > _______________________________________________> > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list> > [email protected]> > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss> >>
