On 25/09/2024 11:06, Simon Kelley wrote: > Downsides to this proposed change. > > 1) Old versions of Windows might break. > 2) Newer versions of windows might break - we've not done testing on > which do and don't. > 3) Other platforms which have made the same mistake might break. > 4) Dnsmasq installations which unkowningly rely on this behaviour in > other respects might break. > > Upsides to the proposed change. > 1) ~1% more available addresses in DHCP pools. > 2) A small amount of code which no longer needs maintenance. > > It's not clear to me what the balance is here. Opinions, list? > > Simon.
The reason why I raised this subject is of course the fact that it enables the use of IP addresses in DHCP pools that are not otherwise available for use. IPv4 addresses are a scarce resource, and maximising their use is, in my opinion, a worthy goal. But if the dnsmasq project isn't ready to remove this restriction, would a patch be accepted that makes it configurable? If so, what should the default be? Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
