DHCP - combine with other DHCP - HOWTO?

[Zaerc]

all i'm asking is that you give us the ability to allow the core to work on ONE subnet, us who know networks can take care of the rest.

You already have that ability, it just requires additional setup,  I wish "us who know networks" would realize that for a change.  As for the GATEWAY ADDRESS "problem", it is set to the core for a reason.

[blacklotus]

You already have that ability, it just requires additional setup,  I wish "us who know networks" would realize that for a change.  As for the GATEWAY ADDRESS "problem", it is set to the core for a reason.

I'm curious, what "reason" would require dhcp only handing out the lan ip of the core if you weren't using the core for routing? just wondering about that.

Being able to choose what the dhcp hands out for the gateway address would be my single biggest request.

more flexibility would be nice, but i don't mind using the core as the dhcp server. after all, we can just put it in its own subnet if we don't want it to interfere with other parts of the network. just let us define the gateway dhcp hands out please! pretty, pretty please?

[royw]

Just FYI, you might want to look at /etc/dhcp3/dhcpd.conf and man dhcpd.  Now what changing the gateway route would break, I don't know as I haven't tried it (I decided a long time ago to use the preferred 2 nic core setup with a media subnet within my home net).

Have fun,
Roy

[Zaerc]

You already have that ability, it just requires additional setup,  I wish "us who know networks" would realize that for a change.  As for the GATEWAY ADDRESS "problem", it is set to the core for a reason.

I'm curious, what "reason" would require dhcp only handing out the lan ip of the core if you weren't using the core for routing? just wondering about that.

Being able to choose what the dhcp hands out for the gateway address would be my single biggest request.

more flexibility would be nice, but i don't mind using the core as the dhcp server. after all, we can just put it in its own subnet if we don't want it to interfere with other parts of the network. just let us define the gateway dhcp hands out please! pretty, pretty please?

I think I'll leave that for "us who know networks" to figure out, as I have no interest in yet another pointless discussion on how everything needs to be changed to fascilitate some self proclaimed networking "experts" who can only see the features they want to use as important. 

[blacklotus]

You already have that ability, it just requires additional setup,  I wish "us who know networks" would realize that for a change.  As for the GATEWAY ADDRESS "problem", it is set to the core for a reason.

I'm curious, what "reason" would require dhcp only handing out the lan ip of the core if you weren't using the core for routing? just wondering about that.

Being able to choose what the dhcp hands out for the gateway address would be my single biggest request.

more flexibility would be nice, but i don't mind using the core as the dhcp server. after all, we can just put it in its own subnet if we don't want it to interfere with other parts of the network. just let us define the gateway dhcp hands out please! pretty, pretty please?

I think I'll leave that for "us who know networks" to figure out, as I have no interest in yet another pointless discussion on how everything needs to be changed to fascilitate some self proclaimed networking "experts" who can only see the features they want to use as important. 

cmon, that's ridiculous for you to have such a narrowminded viewpoint of the situation. have you never dealt with a network in which the dhcp server was NOT a router?

because it looks like the assumption you are making is that dhcp server are always routers/gateways. if that is the case then it's amusing to hear you call yourself a networking expert

[Zaerc]

You already have that ability, it just requires additional setup,  I wish "us who know networks" would realize that for a change.  As for the GATEWAY ADDRESS "problem", it is set to the core for a reason.

I'm curious, what "reason" would require dhcp only handing out the lan ip of the core if you weren't using the core for routing? just wondering about that.

Being able to choose what the dhcp hands out for the gateway address would be my single biggest request.

more flexibility would be nice, but i don't mind using the core as the dhcp server. after all, we can just put it in its own subnet if we don't want it to interfere with other parts of the network. just let us define the gateway dhcp hands out please! pretty, pretty please?

I think I'll leave that for "us who know networks" to figure out, as I have no interest in yet another pointless discussion on how everything needs to be changed to fascilitate some self proclaimed networking "experts" who can only see the features they want to use as important. 

cmon, that's ridiculous for you to have such a narrowminded viewpoint of the situation. have you never dealt with a network in which the dhcp server was NOT a router?

because it looks like the assumption you are making is that dhcp server are always routers/gateways. if that is the case then it's amusing to hear you call yourself a networking expert

You're the one making assumptions here, not me.  Just out of curiousity, where am I calling myself a "networking expert"?

[hari]

because it looks like the assumption you are making is that dhcp server are always routers/gateways. if that is the case then it's amusing to hear you call yourself a networking expert

thats a design decision. Instead of bullying around you'd better come up with a patch. If you really want that functionality why don't you implement it? Yeah, i forgot, it's easier to bash around.

best regards,
Hari

ps: no one of the self called experts wanting other network combinations came up with anything... nothing to see here, go ahead

[royw]

Guys, I realize this is one of the passionate issues, but can we play nice here?   May I suggest just responding with a brief listing of technical obstacles then a request for a volunteer to tackle it.

Thank you,
Roy

[mami]

Why not make a Poll and see witch user use/wants/prefere what configuration?

I have 2 networks now, but wanted 1. I think many users have a router/firewall in there house allready that handle Internet/DHCP.
To change DHCP server to the LMCE in not a problem.
But a easy configuration for one network card would be great in LMCE, so the DHCP sets Router/Firewall as gateway.

Why not in Pluto webadmin under network:
- Networkcards (set ip numbers etc.)
- Firewall/NAT (on/off, rules)
- DHCP
- DNS

/Mami

[gazzzman]

am I missing something here?
if you want to use another gateway why not just turn OFF DHCP on the box you want to use a different gateway on (presumably a non pluto device)
and talk directly to your router?
any device that is using or being used by Lmce can use Lmce as a gateway.
if I understand the situation correctly..
we have a small dedicated development team that are up to their eyes in real issues and improvements
the networking problems are well down the list because the solutions for everyday use are well known and easily implemented

[royw]

am I missing something here?
if you want to use another gateway why not just turn OFF DHCP on the box you want to use a different gateway on (presumably a non pluto device)
and talk directly to your router?

As I understand the issue, auto discovery of devices (SMB shares, network orbiters, hdhomerun, ...) is tightly coupled to the core being the DHCP server (auto discovery monitors a log file looking for device connection messages from dhcpd).  Also the DHCP server provides the PXE net boot information used by diskless MDs.

FYI the core's dhcpd assigns fixed-address IPs to some devices (/etc/dhcp3/dhcpd.conf groups).  I think this is because the device's IP is stored in the database and by using non-expiring leases, the core does not need to worry about updating the database for dynamically changing device IPs.  An external dhcpd would not know which devices need non-expiring leases.

So if you choose to disable DHCP, you should plan on:
* using static IPs for all your network storage and hdhomerun devices, that you will then have to manually add
* stale IP addresses in your database for any dynamic IP devices that happen to change
* not using any diskless MDs unless you know how to configure your external dhcpd to point PXE boot to the core (/etc/dhcp3/dhcpd.conf)
* possibly other issues

In conclusion, by not using the core's dhcpd, you are giving up two major features of LMCE (plug & play, diskless MDs) and asking for extra problems (stale IP addresses in your database).  Hopefully now it is understandable why this is not a trivial issue.  If you are still game, then I strongly suggest you search the forum on "DHCP" and read all of the posts.

Have fun,
Roy

[teedge77]

roy...i think you misunderstood him.

if you want to use another gateway why not just turn OFF DHCP on the box you want to use a different gateway on (presumably a non pluto device)
and talk directly to your router?

he isnt saying turn off DHCP on the linuxmce box.

(i also dont know if he really worded it that well. i think hes saying set a static ip for whatever non linuxmce machine needs a gateway other than LMCE.)

[royw]

roy...i think you misunderstood him.

if you want to use another gateway why not just turn OFF DHCP on the box you want to use a different gateway on (presumably a non pluto device)
and talk directly to your router?

My bad.  I did read that as suggesting to turn off the DHCP on the core...

Have fun,
Roy

[gazzzman]

sorry all if I didn't explain myself too well
you NEED DHCP running on the core and you NEED DHCP on anything you want to use with LMCE

however.. you CAN use one network and one network card on the core (think router on a stick if that helps   )
say your original router uses subnet 192.168.0.1/24 and you set the EXTERNAL address on the core at 192.168.0.254 and a gateway address of 192.168.0.1

(make sure your LAN DHCP is OFF on your original router!!)
(I do NOT mean turn off your ISP side DHCP if you need it   )

now the default core INTERNAL  IP address is 192.168.80.1 and I see no reason to change that
so..
anything you use on LMCE you enable DHCP it will find the gateway as 192.168.80.1 and be on the subnet 192.168.80.1/24 and it will still connect to the internet (via the core, then your router)

anything you don't want to tell Sarah about you configure manually to the subnet 192.168.0.1/24 with a gateway address of 192.168.0.1 then it will connect to the internet directly via your router

both networks can share the same switches the same cabling etc

all this works and seems to work well (as it should according to the laws of IP)
YOU get the security and controllability you want without tearing unnecessarily into the fabric of LMCE or driving the DEV's MAD

you DON'T need any V-LANS or special cabling BTW the whole point of TCP/IP is it is a ROUTABLE protocol!

hope this helps clarify a little
Gazzzman

 

[wsuetholz]

Couple of thoughts I had while reading this thread...

0) Just to be clear..  Having multiple DHCP servers on a network is just asking for trouble.. Don't do it!

1) If the scripts are just reading the syslog entries, you can set up the core as your syslog server, and set up your linux and some hardware routers to log to your core.  That would allow the auto scripts to work.  It doesn't do anything for the fixed IP addresses that get automatically assigned/saved for MD's though.

2) I had at one point in my quest for a media server, ran a single NIC install of LinuxMCE, heck I even tried Pluto@Home before LinuxMCE..  I ran into an issue with the database entries, and auto generated dhcpd.conf file not storing the default router entry, which I did post I believe in these forums not Pluto's.  I had modified the dhcpd.conf generation script to put in the correct default router for my network, but it was a pain.  I had turned off the DHCP on my hardware router, but if I didn't have the correct default route things didn't work correctly.

3) What about the Asterisk problems being NATted?  Are there any?  Also, does the core do any kind of traffic shaping for VOIP when it's acting as the router?

4) Is LinuxMCE using shorewall, or anything like that, or is it using homebrew rulesets?

5) I too have problems putting all my eggs (so to speak) in one basket, and would prefer being able to split up the servers a bit.  ie..  LRP/Leaf Router, Asterisk Server, Myth Backend being distributed among different machines.

6) There is no reason for people to jump all over people for wanting more flexibility in the networking choices when installing the core.  There is also no reason not to tell them to implement it and submit a patch, but if they do go to the trouble to submit a patch I would hope that it wouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

7) There is no need for the level of rudeness that has been exhibited by some of the authors of this thread.  I do realize however that most of the requests and comments on this subject have been made many times before.  Since this is one place where the lack of flexibility to easily put a LinuxMCE core into an existing network can get frustrating.  I also realize that the original system that this was based on was designed to be the starting point or replacement, not to integrate in, after all, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Yes, I too rambled a bit...

Bill