Hi together,
Am 12.10.19 um 23:20 schrieb Simon Kelley:
> On 10/10/2019 16:54, Florent Fourcot wrote:
>> Hello Simon,
>>
>>
>>> Of course, it involves enumerating the broken machines, rather than a
>>> blanket setting covering everything, but that's probably a good thing.
>>> It's what I wanted to provide with the tag extension I suggested, and
>>> rather renders that redundant.
>>>
>>> What do you thin Florent? Is this enough, or would you like the new
>>> blanket option as well?
>>
>> Thank you for the point on this option, I missed it before. However,
>> iIterating on hosts is not really a solution for us, since it's customer
>> devices (they appear/disappear out of our control, on a lot of sites).
>>
>> Moreover, in our context, MAC addresses are more relevant than clients
>> identifiers, even for hosts with a valid identifier. Our networks have
>> some checks on couple IP/MAC addresses consistency, and distributing an
>> IP address previously in use with another MAC is probably a bad idea for
>> this kind of tools.
>>
>> So, I'm still in favor of the blanket options.
>>
>
> OK, I'm convinced. The patch is in.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Simon.
is this also applicable to IPv6, which suffers from similar issues?
This could chime in well withe the patch posted earlier by Pali Rohár on this
list.
Cheers,
Oliver
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
