Assigning host entries to diffrent subnets

[Erik Bloodaxe]

Simon Hobson wrote:
> Erik Bloodaxe wrote:
> [..........snip..snip..]

> That's correct, you haven't told the server that these clients CAN'T 
> have an address from that pool. If it's an either/or situation then 
> you just need to add 'deny members of "pxe-clients";' to the first 
> pool. With more classes & pools then it starts getting a bit more 
> interesting !
>
Right thanks, but I will want to do this.  I will have a number of  set 
of mac addresses each set will need to be assigned to a subnet and then 
I will want to put all unknown macs into a special restricted access subnet.

How do i go about this with out having to list all the classes in deny 
members of ...   statements in all pools other than the one destined for 
them.


>
>> Also a 2nd qustion.   When I have 2 pools that the client matches 
>> which one does the IP address get assigned from?
>
> It's 'undefined'
>
> Officially, if there is more than one pool from which a client can get 
> an address, then it is undefined as to what address the client will 
> get. However, as implemented at present (version 3.x) AND LIABLE TO 
> CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE, new clients will be given the highest IP 
> address which has never been used - ie the server works 'top down' 
> through the list of available IPs. It's not deliberately designed that 
> way, it's just an effect of the way the memory structures are 
> allocated internally.
>
> Once every address has been used at least once, then then it is 
> defined. The next address allocated will be the least recently used 
> that is in the free state (ie the one whose lease has been expired for 
> longest).
>
> Regardless of the above, if the client has previously had an address 
> under the same client-ID (or MAC address if no client-ID supplied), 
> then it will be given the same address again if it is still available 
> (ie it hasn't been reallocated) and is allowable to the client - 
> regardless of how long since it last had it.
>
> As a last resort, the server will attempt to recover abandoned leases, 
> again on a least recently used basis.
>
>

Ok thanks but that maked knowing the answer to the first question all 
the more important.

Regards

Rob