On 25/09/2024 19:16, Jan Ceuleers wrote:
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?
I'm genuinely undecided if changing this is a good idea or not, but I'm
very sure that making it configurable is a bad idea. The default
question illustrates why. If the default is to use .0 and .255
addresses, then the mysterious failure mode that prompted the original
code can hit unless an obscure option has been set. If the default goes
the other way then getting any benefit requires setting an obscure option.
Something which would be valuable would be to actually test (say)
Windows 8, Windows 10 and Windows 11 to check if the problem exists in
any windows version likely to still be in use.
Cheers,
Simon.
Thanks, Jan
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
