* Simon Kelley > I have an alternative suggestion for the syntax of dhcp-host. > It's less flexible, but simpler and easier to understand and to explain, > and uses existing semantics rather than adding new keywords. > > The idea is just to add a prefix-length to the address. That allows you > to define (eg) 1,2,4,8, or 16 addresses for use by a host simply and > easily in a way which makes it difficult to accidentally overlap address > ranges, and is fairly obvious to anyone who has done done any IPv6 > network configuration. > > for instance to reserve four addresses for each host we cold do: > > dhcp-host=00:11:22:33:44:55,[fd12:3456::aa00/62] > dhcp-host=00:11:22:33:44:56,[fd12:3456::aa04/62] > dhcp-host=00:11:22:33:44:57,[fd12:3456::aa08/62] > > As a sanity check, if the "host part" of the address isn't zero, > > ie [fd12:3456::aa01/62] > > that could be rejected with an error.
I have done quite a bit of IPv6 networking, but the use of /62 here is anything but «fairly obvious» to me. It would have been much more intuitive to use /126, in my opinion. Tore _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
