Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 20:39:39 +0100 From: Frank Leonhardt <freebsd-doc@fjl.co.uk> To: questions <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Why does dhcpd have a routers (plural) option for a subnet? Message-ID: <e06b7b26386ddc026c6ebfc24b86a642@fjl.co.uk>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] 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. Thanks, Frank. [-- Attachment #2 --] <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'> <p>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.</p> <p>Rather than adding a second just to see what happens I thought I'd ask?</p> <p>I expect it's a mistake in the early days of dhcpd that was too late to fix, or left for further expansion.</p> <p>Thanks, Frank.</p> <p><br /></p> <p><br /></p> <p><br /></p> </body></html>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e06b7b26386ddc026c6ebfc24b86a642>