about concept "group", "shared-network", and "subnet", thanks.

[Stemen, Andrew Michael]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:02 +0100, "Simon Hobson" <dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk>
wrote:
> Stemen, Andrew Michael wrote:
> >It is my practice (and I recommend it to others) that every network 
> >have a shared-network statement, simply for greater clarity, even if 
> >there is only one subnet on that network.
> 
> I'll disagree there and suggest not using shared networks if you 
> don't need them. It's another level of nesting to get confused over, 
> and it's something else to confuse a novice admin that has to take 
> over when you get knocked down by the proverbial bus.

Would you consider my suggestion to be outright incorrect, or just
personal preference? I've provided instruction to many other admins in
the same way I did here, and they all seemed to understand my logic (and
I've never seen it cause a configuration issue). I tend to think about
everything as a relation - you can't logically configure subnets for a
network that doesn't exist in the configuration. Yes, we know that dhcpd
will transparently understand that there is a unique network for that
subnet, but that's far less clear to me. In any case, if there's truly
something wrong with doing it this way, I stand corrected. ;) 

---
Andrew Michael Stemen
andrew at andrewmstemen.net