vista, dns woes ?

[James Clark Calloway]

Well, we don't really need to have the global. But, I took it out, 
moved the dns declaration to the subnet definition, and tested with:

     subnet 1.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.252.0 {
         authoritative;
         option routers 1.1.1.1.1;
         option domain-name-servers 1.1.1.1;
         pool {
             allow unknown clients;
             range 1.1.1..32 1.1.1.47;
             option domain-name-servers  2.2.2.2;
         }
     }

and an unknown client got the "registered" dns. Should that be considered 
a bug(vista or dhcp), feature(again, vista or dhcp), or misconfigured dhcp
or my part?

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Bruce Hudson wrote:

>
>    For what it is worth, we do not use a global DNS option. We have two
> subnets in a shared network, each with its own parameters.
>
> 	shared-network VLAN162 {
> 	    authoritative;
>
> 	    subnet 129.173.162.0  netmask 255.255.254.0 {
> 	        option domain-name-servers 129.173.1.100, 129.173.5.100;
> 	        option routers 129.173.162.1;
>
> 	        pool {          #VLAN162-DYNAMIC
> 	            range 129.173.163.194 129.173.163.248;
> 	            allow members of "registered-hosts";
> 	            allow known clients;
> 	        }
> 	    }
>
> 	    subnet 172.29.162.0 netmask 255.255.254.0 {
> 	        option domain-name-servers 129.173.1.101;
> 	        option routers 172.29.162.1;
>
> 	        pool {          #VLAN162-REGISTRY
> 	            range 172.29.162.50 172.29.163.248;
> 	            deny members of "registered-hosts";
> 	            deny known clients;
> 	        }
> 	    }
> 	}
>
>   The DNS servers that some non-registered Vista clients are seeing are
> our main servers, as specified in the main subnet.
> --
> Bruce A. Hudson				| Bruce.Hudson at Dal.CA
> UCIS, Networks and Systems		|
> Dalhousie University			|
> Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada		| (902) 494-3405
>
>