Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonJoel View Post
    ??? That's not how I see it... That's not how DNSMasq is supposed to work, so I would say he's doing it wrong per how Untangle and DNSMasq work.
    Then Iím missing something. Iím reading allocated addresses donít need to be in the dhcp range but they must be in the same subnet as the dhcp range. So like several of us, he specifies a range and allocates fixed addresses outside the range.

    If thatís not how either Untangle or dnsmasq are supposed to work, then Iím definitely missing something. Especially since it does work even if itís not supposed to.

    So in my case, Iím doing it wrong but all my assigned IPs stick. Unfailingly, over a couple years and at a total of 5 different Untangle deployments. Why that isnít working for another user is the question, or why it has worked for me is the question. Or why Sam canít read English is the question.

  2. #22
    Untangler jcoffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    7,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Graf View Post
    If that’s not how either Untangle or dnsmasq are supposed to work, then I’m definitely missing something. Especially since it does work even if it’s not supposed to.
    Untangle uses dnsmasq so the same rules for dnsmasq applies to Untangle. If your LAN is 192.168.1.1/24 and your DHCP range is 192.168.1.100-192.168.1.200, you can have static assign entries in DHCP outside of the range. For example 192.168.1.12 can be a static entry.

    Hope that clears it up.
    Attention: Support and help on the Untangle Forums is provided by
    volunteers and community members like yourself.
    If you need Untangle support please call or email support@untangle.com

  3. #23
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Thank you.

  4. #24
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    686

    Default

    Thanks to both of you. I misread things then. I genuinely didn't think you could do that in dnsmasq based on previous testing. I like this answer much more.

    Thanks for clarifying, and sorry if I muddied the water unintentionally.

  5. #25
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    650

    Default

    No problem. I'm grateful dmorris reminded us that the docs are the authority. My mistake was paying as little attention to that part of the conversation as i could since I was confident that the lease problem was not in the address assignment method.

    Now if we could figure out that problem, I'd feel a lot better.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2