On 22/9/20 4:22 pm, Nicolas Cavallari wrote: > On 21/09/2020 21:32, Paul Gear wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I've been trying to solve the same problem described in this blog post: >> https://blog.fhrnet.eu/2020/03/07/dhcp-server-on-a-32-subnet/ >> >> In a nutshell, the situation is a VM host which performs routing and >> firewalling for all its guests, providing an isolated IPv4 /32 (and in >> my case an IPv6 /64 or /128 as well) to each VM guest, and using >> interface routes on the host to direct traffic to each guest, without >> wasting IPv4 addresses on /31 or /30 point-to-point links. >> ... > This sounds like the use case for shared-network: > > shared-network=virbr13,192.168.1.26 > > or > > shared-network=172.16.0.1,192.168.1.26 > > Alternatively, i sent this patch a while ago to be able to ignore any > matching, but my use case is different. I can send an updated version if > people are interested. > > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2018q1/012070.html
Ah, perfect - thanks very much, Nicolas. I was doing my testing using the OS-packaged dnsmasq on my laptop, which was 2.79. Looks like shared-network was added in 2.81. I'll upgrade and do some testing, but it looks from the description like this is exactly what I'm looking for. Much appreciated. Regards, Paul _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
