LinuxQuestions.org - dhcpd non-sequential client lease

- Linux - Server (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-server-73/)

- - dhcpd non-sequential client lease (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-server-73/dhcpd-non-sequential-client-lease-493595/)

dhcpd non-sequential client lease

As stupid as it may sound, I'm really, really confused as to why dhcpd will lease out IPs non-sequentially.

Here is my .conf:

Code:

# Set DHCPD to answer requests on the wireless interface



DHCPDARGS=wlan0;



# Set some defaults for lease time and DNS update method

ddns-update-style ad-hoc;

default-lease-time 600;

max-lease-time 7200;



# Set the subnet mask for the wireless IP network

option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;



# Set the Broadcast address. This will be 10.x.x.255,

# the "x.x" will depend upon the network assigned to you by NZWireless.

option broadcast-address 10.0.0.255;



# Set the router address, this will be 10.x.x.1, the address

# of your wireless interface WLAN0

option routers 10.0.0.1;



# Set the Name Server address. This will be the same as your WLAN0 address

# because we intend to run DNS on this machine.

option domain-name-servers 10.0.0.1;





# Allocate a network range for dynamic IP addresses to hand out to clients.

# Again, this range will be in 10.x.x.x, depending upon the network

# allocated

# to you by your wireless administrator.

subnet 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {

    range 10.0.0.100 10.0.0.254;

}

It doesn't make sense. Obviously I'm doing the homemade AP (which, by the way is a wonderfully written tutorial on here) and I have about five clients. Each time they connect, the numbers are really out of sequence from one another.

I thought

Code:

subnet 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {

    range 10.0.0.100 10.0.0.254;}

that by default the leases would count up from .100.

Anyway, thank you to whomever replies.

Jim

what ip's are you getting then? are there lease files in your dhcp.leases file to account for the missing ones?

Thank you for the fast reply.

The unaccounted IPs...well I've been looking in the dhcp.leases and I can't seem to find the others. Here:

Code:



lease 10.0.0.252 {

  starts 3 2006/10/11 00:27:21;

  ends 3 2006/10/11 00:37:21;

  tstp 3 2006/10/11 00:37:21;

  binding state free;

  hardware ethernet 00:07:e0:8b:60:59;

  uid "\001\000\007\340\213`Y";

}

lease 10.0.0.198 {

  starts 4 2006/10/12 22:20:29;

  ends 4 2006/10/12 22:30:29;

  tstp 4 2006/10/12 22:30:29;

  binding state free;

  hardware ethernet 00:12:f0:cd:98:61;

  uid "\001\000\022\360\315\230a";

}

lease 10.0.0.200 {

  starts 5 2006/10/13 15:53:24;

  ends 5 2006/10/13 16:03:24;

  tstp 5 2006/10/13 16:03:24;

  binding state free;

  hardware ethernet 00:13:02:b9:9a:9d;

  uid "\001\000\023\002\271\232\235";

}

lease 10.0.0.250 {

  starts 2 2006/10/17 23:36:14;

  ends 2 2006/10/17 23:46:14;

  tstp 2 2006/10/17 23:46:14;

  binding state free;

  hardware ethernet 00:12:f0:4c:07:ee;

  uid "\001\000\022\360L\007\356";

}

lease 10.0.0.196 {

  starts 3 2006/10/18 04:50:15;

  ends 3 2006/10/18 05:00:15;

  tstp 3 2006/10/18 05:00:15;

  binding state free;

  hardware ethernet 00:13:02:29:15:89;

  uid "\001\000\023\002)\025\211";

}

-------------------------------------



lease 10.0.0.249 {

  starts 3 2006/10/18 19:07:03;

  ends 3 2006/10/18 19:17:03;

  binding state active;

  next binding state free;

  hardware ethernet 00:11:50:d9:14:c7;

  uid "\001\000\021P\331\024\307";

  client-hostname "rmanter";

}

lease 10.0.0.253 {

  starts 3 2006/10/18 18:14:35;

  ends 3 2006/10/18 20:14:35;

  binding state active;

  next binding state free;

  hardware ethernet 00:17:f2:4d:4b:18;

  uid "\001\000\027\362MK\030";

  client-hostname "Macintosh-4";

}

lease 10.0.0.251 {

  starts 3 2006/10/18 19:08:38;

  ends 3 2006/10/18 19:18:38;

  binding state active;

  next binding state free;

  hardware ethernet 00:13:ce:23:31:42;

  uid "\001\000\023\316#1B";

  client-hostname "dualcool";

}

The line denotes two different parts of the file. Other than that, the unaccounted IPs...well I'm not sure, haha.

Thanks again,
Jim