12:01 p.m.
All doc and the libvirt software itself is very insistent that dhcp4
will be supported on one and only one IPv4 subnetwork. Why is true?
Certainly dnsmasq supports multiple dhcp-range definitions and the
actual parameters passed to dnsmasq would be more or less the same! I
can understand some restriction if there were systems libvirt suports
which does not support the multi-dhcp per interface but not the blanket
restriction.
This, this is OK:
------------------------------------------------------
<ip address='172.16.6.1' prefix='16'>
<dhcp>
<range start='172.16.6.128' end='172.16.6.254' />
<range start='172.16.7.128' end='172.16.7.254' />
</dhcp>
</ip>
------------------------------------------------------
but this is not:
------------------------------------------------------
<ip address='172.16.6.1' prefix='16'>
<dhcp>
<range start='172.16.6.128' end='172.16.6.254' />
<range start='172.16.7.128' end='172.16.7.254' />
</dhcp>
</ip>
<ip address='172.16.7.1' prefix='16'>
<dhcp>
<range start='172.16.7.128' end='172.16.7.254' />
</dhcp>
</ip>
------------------------------------------------------
In both cases, the parameters passed to dnsmasq are:
----------------------------------------------------
dhcp-range=172.16.6.128,172.16.6.254
dhcp-range=172.16.7.128,172.16.7.254
----------------------------------------------------
and, for dhcp, dnsmasq does not care about the specific addresses since
it does its own filtering by listening on 0.0.0.0:67/68
Comments?
Gene
12:19 p.m.
On 10/26/2012 01:01 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
All doc and the libvirt software itself is very insistent that dhcp4
will be supported on one and only one IPv4 subnetwork. Why is true?
Not "will be". "is". It's this way because nobody has submitted a
patch
to support it.
It is possible (as far as I understand) to setup dnsmasq so that it will
hand out leases on multiple subnets that are on the same L2 segment, but
it needs to trigger off of something in the dhcp request to decide which
subnet. Definitely this should be possible for static hosts; for clients
getting an address from a pool, I don't recall how it would work - if
there's some sort of "network id" that can be placed in the request, or
if dnsmasq can have a list of client names/macs and the network they
will be on without specifying the exact IP address.
Certainly dnsmasq supports multiple dhcp-range definitions and the
actual parameters passed to dnsmasq would be more or less the same!
I think the parameters passed to dnsmasq need more work than you think.
Multiple ranges on the same subnet is one thing, but ranges on multiple
subnets are entirely different - each range would have a different
default route and different dns server for starters. And how would it
decide which subnet to put each client on?
I can understand some restriction if there were systems libvirt
suports which does not support the multi-dhcp per interface but not
the blanket restriction.
This, this is OK:
------------------------------------------------------
<ip address='172.16.6.1' prefix='16'>
<dhcp>
<range start='172.16.6.128' end='172.16.6.254' />
<range start='172.16.7.128' end='172.16.7.254' />
</dhcp>
</ip>
------------------------------------------------------
but this is not:
------------------------------------------------------
<ip address='172.16.6.1' prefix='16'>
<dhcp>
<range start='172.16.6.128' end='172.16.6.254' />
<range start='172.16.7.128' end='172.16.7.254' />
</dhcp>
</ip>
<ip address='172.16.7.1' prefix='16'>
<dhcp>
<range start='172.16.7.128' end='172.16.7.254' />
</dhcp>
</ip>
------------------------------------------------------
In both cases, the parameters passed to dnsmasq are:
----------------------------------------------------
dhcp-range=172.16.6.128,172.16.6.254
dhcp-range=172.16.7.128,172.16.7.254
----------------------------------------------------
and, for dhcp, dnsmasq does not care about the specific addresses
since it does its own filtering by listening on 0.0.0.0:67/68
You're specifying two IP addresses on the same subnet, rather than two
different subnets. That's much simpler (aside from deciding which of
those two addresses to use as the default router).
Comments?
Feel free to make some patches. I would be wary if the code started
looking complicated, though - for example detecting when multiple
gateway ip addresses are on the same subnet (that actually doesn't sound
as useful to me as the case where the multiple ip's are each on a
different subnet).
2:52 p.m.
On 10/26/2012 01:19 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
On 10/26/2012 01:01 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> All doc and the libvirt software itself is very insistent that dhcp4
> will be supported on one and only one IPv4 subnetwork. Why is true?
Not "will be". "is". It's this way because nobody has submitted a
patch
to support it.
OK, work (patch) in progress :}} ... because I would like to have
both
dhcp4 AND dhcp6 on a dual-stack (dual subnet) network.
And speaking of dhcp6, I thought I would need to do a lot of programming
to see it implemented. So far, it is more a matter of figuring out
where is put a (very) little more code. I am a bit surprised someone
has not done it already. You folks have already done 98% (or more) of
what needs to be done to support dhcp6. My current code is either/or
(dhcp4, but if dhcp4 is not defined, then try dhcp6. I also need to
tweak things so that radvd has the correct parameters when dhcp6 is
specified.
[I had visions of needing to delve into virsh but ... no adds, no
deletes, no changes ... and dhcpv6 works with virsh net-edit, etc. happy
as can be.]
What I have so far has given me something that works. Then it is a
matter of adding/changes tests (you folks sure do love those tests) and
how about those things like bootp, dhcp-host, etc. ... well, OK, I just
started.
It is possible (as far as I understand) to setup dnsmasq so that it will
hand out leases on multiple subnets that are on the same L2 segment, but
it needs to trigger off of something in the dhcp request to decide which
subnet. Definitely this should be possible for static hosts; for clients
getting an address from a pool, I don't recall how it would work - if
there's some sort of "network id" that can be placed in the request, or
if dnsmasq can have a list of client names/macs and the network they
will be on without specifying the exact IP address.
> Certainly dnsmasq supports multiple dhcp-range definitions and the
> actual parameters passed to dnsmasq would be more or less the same!
I think the parameters passed to dnsmasq need more work than you think.
Multiple ranges on the same subnet is one thing, but ranges on multiple
subnets are entirely different - each range would have a different
default route and different dns server for starters. And how would it
decide which subnet to put each client on?
You ask the tough questions ... IIRC,
for dhcp6 I believe that dnsmasq
does know which subnet the packet came in on. dhcp4 ... don't know.
> I can understand some restriction if there were systems libvirt
> suports which does not support the multi-dhcp per interface but not
> the blanket restriction.
>
> This, this is OK:
> ------------------------------------------------------
> <ip address='172.16.6.1' prefix='16'>
> <dhcp>
> <range start='172.16.6.128' end='172.16.6.254' />
> <range start='172.16.7.128' end='172.16.7.254' />
> </dhcp>
> </ip>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> but this is not:
> ------------------------------------------------------
> <ip address='172.16.6.1' prefix='16'>
> <dhcp>
> <range start='172.16.6.128' end='172.16.6.254' />
> <range start='172.16.7.128' end='172.16.7.254' />
> </dhcp>
> </ip>
> <ip address='172.16.7.1' prefix='16'>
> <dhcp>
> <range start='172.16.7.128' end='172.16.7.254' />
> </dhcp>
> </ip>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> In both cases, the parameters passed to dnsmasq are:
> ----------------------------------------------------
> dhcp-range=172.16.6.128,172.16.6.254
> dhcp-range=172.16.7.128,172.16.7.254
> ----------------------------------------------------
> and, for dhcp, dnsmasq does not care about the specific addresses
> since it does its own filtering by listening on 0.0.0.0:67/68
You're specifying two IP addresses on the same subnet, rather than two
different subnets. That's much simpler (aside from deciding which of
those two addresses to use as the default router).
The above examples show what is
dnsmasq gets but if you look at the
dnsmasq man-page, there are a lot of other things like prefix, etc. The
above examples would be the same if prefix=24 rather than prefix=16. It
might be interesting to ask Simon what he wants sent to dnsmasq. Is
what is done currently sufficient?
> Comments?
Feel free to make some patches. I would be wary if the code started
looking complicated, though - for example detecting when multiple
gateway ip addresses are on the same subnet (that actually doesn't sound
as useful to me as the case where the multiple ip's are each on a
different subnet).
I am just adding a few lines here and a few lines there. Most of the
code already does what is needed.
However, I do believe that we need to explore more with Simon Kelley
(Mr. Dnsmasq) so that we are specifying things correctly.
BTW, this only helps those whose systems are supported with
bridge_driver. Anything else is ??
Gene
4411
days inactive
4411
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Gene Czarcinski -
Laine Stump