host statement scope rules (ISC DHCP 3.0.5b1)

[Sten Carlsen]

You just hit the point I try to make. I still have not seen anything
close to a crystal clear definition for what it means to place the host
statement in different places in the file.

IF there is an unclear point about precedence, like mentioned, I think
at least a warning to that effect is appropriate. For longer term, I
think this really needs to be sorted out so it really IS crystal clear.

Simon Hobson wrote:
> David W. Hankins wrote:
>
>   
>> The subnet {} clause is implicitly also a group {} clause.  So all
>> host statements within the subnet {} clause share a group that is
>> anchored at the subnet's curly braces.  The same is true of the
>> shared-network {} clause, it is also implicitly a group {}.
>>
>>
>> What's left for this thread is to decide consensus about how best
>> to illustrate these two pieces of information to novice users.
>>
>> Currently, 3.1.0 as it exists on our release branch will produce
>> a single-line warning (no matter how many host records you have)
>> with the following text:
>>
>> 		log_error("WARNING: Host declarations are "
>> 			  "global.  They are not limited to "
>> 			  "the scope you declared them in.");
>>
>> There aren't enough cycles between now and 3.1.0's release to
>> add an option to remove this warning, as has been requested.
>>
>> Our options for 3.1.0's schedule are to go ahead as it is, to
>> reword it, or to remove this 'feature' entirely.
>>
>> Please provide some feedback on what you'd like to see in 3.1.0.
>>     
>
> Is there any real reason to need the inheritance of putting a host 
> declaration within a subnet ? I guess it comes down to, will the host 
> inherit anything that it wouldn't have inherited anyway by virtue of 
> being 'put there' as the server allocates it to a subnet for lease 
> allocation purposes ?
>
> I believe the answer is no to both of these (unless someone knows 
> differently), and if that is the case then I suggest keeping the 
> warning as-is. Perhaps it might be worth a couple of lines in the man 
> page along the lines of :
>
> "Whilst host statements may be placed within a subnet or 
> shared-network declaration, this was not an intentional capability 
> and its use is deprecated."
>
>
> Also, if the host inherits something from one subnet (by the host 
> declaration being within it), and a different value for the same 
> option when the server puts a client in a different subnet, which 
> takes precedence ? It strikes me that having a host that can be given 
> options relevant for a different subnet is a tad dangerous - I wonder 
> if it's been responsible for some of the "the client got the wrong 
> value" queries on the list ?
>
> Simon
>
>   

-- 
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

No improvements come from shouting:

       "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!"