Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 13:04:35 -0700 From: Steve Rikli <sr@genyosha.net> To: Frank Leonhardt <freebsd-doc@fjl.co.uk> Cc: questions <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why does dhcpd have a routers (plural) option for a subnet? Message-ID: <ZvRs07mQ7fTOBCq4@dragon.home.genyosha.net> In-Reply-To: <e06b7b26386ddc026c6ebfc24b86a642@fjl.co.uk> References: <e06b7b26386ddc026c6ebfc24b86a642@fjl.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 08:39:39PM +0100, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
> Ever wondered why there's a "routers" option in dhcpd.conf? I have. Why
> isn't in just "router", as surely you can only have one default gateway?
> Except that's been muddied a bit by MSFT.
>
> Rather than adding a second just to see what happens I thought I'd ask?
>
> I expect it's a mistake in the early days of dhcpd that was too late to fix,
> or left for further expansion.
Fwiw, dhcp-options(5) says:
option routers ip-address [, ip-address ...];
The routers option specifies a list of IP addresses for routers
on the client's subnet. Routers should be listed in order of
preference.
That said, I've never really tried multiple address there either. :-)
Cheers,
sr.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ZvRs07mQ7fTOBCq4>