On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Simon Kelley wrote: > On 23/06/13 20:34, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to suggest that enable-tftp and no-dhcp-interface should be >> decoupled. >> >> Not only is it confusing that no-dhcp-interface also disables >> enable-tftp for that interface, but it is sometimes desirable to >> allow DNS and TFTP on an interface without DHCP. >> >> Looking at "src/tftp.c" is seems there is no dependance on DHCP >> except to walk the no-dhcp-interface args when HAVE_DHCP is defined. >> >> Ideally, IMHO, enable-tftp should be independent from HAVE_DHCP and >> add a new "no-tftp-interface" config that would be tested for >> interface exceptions instead of no-dhcp-interface. >> >> Reasonable ? > > The rationale for the current state-of-the-world is that the TFTP server in > dnsmasq is provided for the express purpose of doing netbooting, so it makes > sense to do TFTP on the same interfaces/addresses as DHCP. > > I'd like to keep that as-is, for backwards compatibility if no other reason, > so I suggest that we could add new option --tftp-interface that would have a > higher priority than no-dhcp-interface. SO, to do TFTP but NOT DHCP on eth0 > you'd do > > no-dhcp-interface=eth0 > tftp-interface=eth0 > > No existing configs would change meaning, and the common case wouldn't need > to use the new option. > > Comments? > > Simon.
To be clear, if in the above example eth1 had DHCP enabled, then TFTP would be served on both eth0 and eth1 ? If so, would this be more clear ? -- tftp-no-dhcp-interface=eth0 -- which would be a synonym for "no-dhcp-interface" but would mark that interface to allow TFTP. I agree no change to existing configs is best. Lonnie _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss