DHCP-Setup to serve two networks
Simon Hobson
dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk
Mon May 19 19:44:08 UTC 2008
Oliver Emslers wrote:
>is there a easy way to share two (or more) public networks equally
>to internal clients to do some kind of minimal load balancing with
>DHCP? Just to have for instance approx. 50% clients on Network-A and
>50% on Network-B with minimal Lease-Times. I know all the
>disadvantages this setup has, but that's not the question, please
>don't remind me! ;-) A working setup would be something like that:
>
>subnet 87.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.128 { range 87.1.1.1; option
>routers 87.1.1.126; option domain-name-servers 192.168.9.254; }
>
>subnet 87.2.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.128 { range 87.2.1.1; option
>routers 87.2.1.126; option domain-name-servers 192.168.9.254; }
>
>
>[...]
>
>and add every single ip to a separate subnet declaration. I already
>tried that out, it works. Isn't there a easier, more elegant way?
The question is really unclear ! You give an example of two subnets
with one usable IP in each, then make the statement "and add every
single ip to a separate subnet declaration" - do you mean you intend
doing something like this :
subnet 87.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.128 { range 87.1.1.1; option
routers 87.1.1.126; option domain-name-servers 192.168.9.254; }
subnet 87.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.128 { range 87.1.1.2; option
routers 87.1.1.126; option domain-name-servers 192.168.9.254; }
subnet 87.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.128 { range 87.1.1.3; option
routers 87.1.1.126; option domain-name-servers 192.168.9.254; }
...
or something like :
subnet 87.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.128 {
range 87.1.1.1;
range 87.1.1.2;
range 87.1.1.3;
...
option routers 87.1.1.126;
option domain-name-servers 192.168.9.254; }
The first is not valid, the second gives no advantage over :
subnet 87.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.128 {
range 87.1.1.1 87.1.1.125;
option routers 87.1.1.126;
option domain-name-servers 192.168.9.254; }
Whichever way you define the ranges, the server allocates "never
used" addresses in a specific order (implementation dependent and not
defined) which at the moment is 'top down' - ie highest address first.
After a bit of churn, the address allocation will end up being
pseudo-random as addresses are reallocated on a least-recently-used
manner. If you wanted to randomise the allocation of leases to new
clients from the outset, then the simplest way would be to write a
script that generated random leases with a very short time and a
bogus client-id so as to 'seed' the leases file with leases that have
randomised expiry times.
More information about the dhcp-users
mailing list