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.
Dear Simon and other list participants, Thank you for the feedback. The discussion has convinced me that the balance between risk and potential benefit is not favourable. I also take the point that making this special treatment configurable, while enabling the small benefits to be realised for those willing to take the associated risks, would require the admin to be very well-informed in order to make the appropriate decision. Thank you again. Cheers, Jan _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
