Performance... no more than 150 leases per second?
Simon Hobson
dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk
Wed Jun 9 18:01:44 UTC 2010
Friesen, Don SSBC:EX wrote:
> subnet 10.32.172.0 netmask 255.255.252.0 {
> pool {
> range 142.32.172.10 142.32.172.255;
> }
> pool {
> range 142.32.173.0 142.32.173.255;
> }
> pool {
> range 142.32.174.0 142.32.174.255;
> }
> pool {
> range 142.32.175.0 142.32.175.254;
> }
> }
Also, it is sometimes suggested you should not include .0 and .255 in
your ranges. Believe it or not, some software developers still cannot
grasp those as being a valid address for a device to have - everyone
**knows** than .0 is the network and .255 the broadcast address, and
at my last job I worked with some supposedly professional network
people who couldn't grasp the error in that :-/
I don't know if any DHCP clients still have a problem, but I know of
one well known manufacturer of routers (popular in the consumer
market) that does not accept .0 or .255 as valid when configuring a
range of addresses to allow remote management from ! The mind boggles
when you think how long classless routing has been the norm and some
people still don't "get it".
Must go and practice being calm for a bit ...
--
Simon Hobson
Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed
author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.
More information about the dhcp-users
mailing list