Reply to remote unicast DHCP requests

Glenn Satchell glenn.satchell at
Wed May 4 12:09:36 UTC 2011

On 05/04/11 17:53, Paúl Ortiz Imedio wrote:
> Glenn Satchell wrote:
>  >So do you have a definition for net2 in dhcpd.conf?
>  >
>  >There needs to be a minimal definition, even if there are no
>  >clients on that subnet. Something like:
>  >
>  >subnet a.b.c.0 netmask { }
>  >
>  >(with whatever the appropriate subnet and netmask is.)
>  >
>  >That should all be fine. The dhcp server is always going to
>  >receive requests via the local network interface.
> I did not know that was needed, and in my simple scenario is easy
> to do it. But in a more general topology, I suppose that this
> implies that dhcpd MUST define (with 'subnet a.b.c.0 ...') every
> local subnet through which the server might receive a DHCP
> request. The packets may arrive the server through different
> interfaces and so dhcpd MUST have all their corresponding local
> subnets configured in dhcpd.conf, even there are no clients on
> those subnets.

Yes, that's correct. What is surprising is that dhcpd should complain at 
startup time if there aren't definitions for all the local subnets. But 
good to hear that all is working now.


More information about the dhcp-users mailing list