Dual DNS server farms in dhcpd.conf

[Frank Bulk]

Point well-made.  In our situation, the device (CM, eMTA, IP TV STB) is
service-tied to the shared network.  To move it to another shared network
would make it not work for other reasons (i.e. IP TV STB on a cable modem
network).

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org
[mailto:dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Satchell
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:13 PM
To: dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
Subject: RE: Dual DNS server farms in dhcpd.conf

If your hosts never move to other subnets then they will probably be
ok. But if one was to be moved (eg a laptop is an example) then it
will inherit options from the shared-network, whatever they may be.

In your mind it might tie these hosts to the network, but to dhcpd it
just tells it where to inherit options from.

regards,
-glenn

>From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk at iname.com>
>Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:44:53 -0500
>
>We have a GUI front-end to our DHCP configuration, and we like to keep our
>host definitions organized as opposed to clumping them all in the global
>scope.  We've always placed our hosts in the shared-subnet without issues.
>But the GUI shows what's inherited because it's location in the
>configuration.
>
>Regards,
>
>Frank
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org
>[mailto:dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Simon Hobson
>Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 1:30 PM
>To: Users of ISC DHCP
>Subject: RE: Dual DNS server farms in dhcpd.conf
>
>John Tabasz (jtabasz) wrote:
>
>>So I understand properly,  when you say putting
>>the host statements inside a scope other than global isn't generally a
>>good idea, you are referring to the shared network scope plus the second
>>scope of the subnet, right?
>
>Exactly. In your config, the host statements are inside the 
>shared-subnet - a case we haven't come across before so I'm not 
>entirely sure what happens here. A couple of times, user have put 
>host statements inside a subnet declaration (erroneously) thinking 
>that this would make the statement valid only within that subnet. 
>They've them come to the list wondering why a client gets an IP 
>address, but other options (such as routers !) from the wrong subnet 
>when the client is connected elsewhere.
>
>What's happened in that case is that the client gets an IP according 
>to the subnet where it is connected, but inherits options from the 
>subnet where it's declared. Hence we keep advising to keep host 
>statement in the global scope.
>
>I think in your case it **probably** isn't an issue since there are 
>no options declared at the shared-network level - but best to avoid 
>it anyway.
>
>-- 
>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.
>_______________________________________________
>dhcp-users mailing list
>dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
>https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcp-users mailing list
>dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
>https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users

_______________________________________________
dhcp-users mailing list
dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users