Re: MVP for a DHCP server (was Re: ISC's EoL dhcp suite, including dhcpd)

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

> Really the best option out there is right now is dnsmasq.
> Tried, tested, supports a lot of OS.
> The two downsides are the GNU license and the integrated DNS.

Those strike me as pretty big downsides, yes.

> [...] I've been working on a DHCP server [...]
> It currently has (almost) zero configuration and the following
> requirements:

> You need to specify a list of interfaces for it to create IP pools on
> Each interface MUST have a private address that fits (10/8,
> 172.16-32/16,192.168/16) AND end with .1
> The first matching address found for the interface will have a pool generated from .10 to the maximal IP within the netmask and will be the Server ID
> The lease time will be an hour, T1 and T2 timers will be automatically generated and sent.
> Router and DNS server options will be sent (if requested) with the Server ID as the value.
> There is currently no persistent storage for leases.

> I'm a believer that routers SHOULD have an address ending in .1 or
> ::1

That is difficult if you're working with a smaller-than-/24 subnet.

I also don't understand why you restrict it to RFC-1918 addresses.

> In a homelab there SHOULD NOT be a large number of statically
> configured nodes, hence the pool starting at .10

I strongly disagree.  The only reason I have a DHCP server on my home
network at all is for devices which either insist on DHCP or are
configured for DHCP and can't be reconfigured without first getting
them on the net.  PXE boot ROMs are an example.

> There is currently no persistent storage for leases.

IMO that is a crippling bug.

> But please note, I don't see persistent leases as MVP because oddly enough t$

Work fine...for your use cases.  How rigorously have you tested
rebooting the DHCP server without rebooting its clients?  The case I'd
expect to be most probelmatic is rebooting the DHCP server without
rebooting anything else, then bringing new clients up before the
existing clients try to renew their leases.

In my (relatively inexpert, and very much not authoritative) opinion:
except for the lack of a persistent lease database, what you describe
is reasonable as a default, but everything about it needs to be
configurable otherwise.  For example, restricting it to RFC-1918
addresses is fine as a default, but it must be configurable for any
subnet (including those smaller than /24).  I would also consider it a
bug if it can't be configured to support two different subnets on the
same interface.

As for a persistent lease database, I do not consider that optional.  I
also believe it needs to be the default, though I would call it
reasonable to support configuring it away.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B