On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Michael Rack <michael.r...@rsm-freilassing.de> wrote: > > Am 13.09.2011 12:17, schrieb SpiderX: > > If it can be done, it should be done :) > > The reason why it should be done in my case not beacuse I'm lazy to > > use sub-option 5, but because I just cannot use it. > > My switch vendor doesnt support RFC5107, and that the reason why I > > can't use dnsmasq, and I'm not the only one. > Surly you are not the only one. I had the same problems. I switched from > my Layer2-Switch DHCP-Relay to a software DHCP-Relay. I does not know > any switch that support one of these RFC-Methods. Also the software > based DHCP-Relay did not support these methods. I had to modify the > source-code to add option 5 (Link selection Sub-option) and option 11 > (Server Identifier Override Suboption). > > You can hack the dnsmasq source-code and add this feature. I agree with > Simon. Since that is not a official way, that solution should not go > into mainstream. > > > _______________________________________________ > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
I don't agree. Dnsmasq is a great software, I use it for years in a small environment. In bigger networks usage of l2 switches is necessary, and as Michael, I dont know too any l2 switch that supports any dhcp-related RFC, except 3046. There are not some many unix dhcp software that can be used with l2 switches, dnsmasq could be one of it. And, as I said earlier, it should be. Solution with taking preference circuit-id and remote-id over sub-option 5 can be implemented as switch, documented with warning in manual, not enabled by default in example config. > According to what Simon wrote earlier, support for either RFC3011 or RFC3527 > should also be good enough. > Doesn't your switch support any of these? No. It doesn't support it too.