From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 3 15:02:09 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3649E2F7 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jab.dat.pl (dat.pl [80.51.155.34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77E41945 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jab.dat.pl (jsrv.dat.pl [127.0.0.1]) by jab.dat.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D540A1DC; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:02:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at dat.pl Received: from jab.dat.pl ([127.0.0.1]) by jab.dat.pl (jab.dat.pl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Zox6ANei4ovo; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:02:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.0.6.80] (unknown [212.69.68.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jab.dat.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2348F47; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:02:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <529DF302.5040200@dat.pl> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 16:04:34 +0100 From: Maciej Milewski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Leonhardt , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: dhcpd static binding problem References: <529DD95A.50103@fjl.co.uk> <529DE822.7060204@dat.pl> <529DEB6B.5000000@fjl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <529DEB6B.5000000@fjl.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:02:09 -0000 On 03.12.2013 15:32, Frank Leonhardt wrote: > I wasn't! It was a typo and it was cut/pasted so subsequent entries, > so thanks for spotting it as it's been driving me crazy. > > Next questions (assuming it now works): > > How come WINDOWXP-PC did get the address 192.168.1.194? Very weird. Maybe that's windows fallback address, if you had earlier range up to 199 and windows got 194? Maybe after reconfiguration dhcpd wasn't restared? I have no more ideas. > > How come dhcpd didn't complain; even when I ran it with the -t option > to check the config file, and the -d option to explain exactly what it > was doing. Of course I didn't want to assign 192.16*9*.1.229, but I > can't see why it didn't just do what I asked OR complain it was > illegal? Just silently ignoring it wasn't very helpful. > > Regards, Frank. I admit that's silence isn't helpful but have no idea if there is other option. That's one of the services set-and-forget :) -- Pozdrawiam, Maciej Milewski