DHCPd with multiple ipv4 subnets outside of local interface network. (300US$)
-
Why are people complaining on the OP not paying up when the bounty isn't completed?
It was to my understanding there is some rule on it. And the rule was there way before the bounty was started. See
Bounty board rules and guidelines - READ FIRST BEFORE STARTING A BOUNTY
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=6948.0
Last edited, new policy of requiring money up front. Sorry but we have been burned too many times now.@Marcello, could you update the bounty if and when you will continue work on it? Most important to me now is merge in 2.2, even with it's limitations. (I just installed the 2.2RC, and seems not to be in it)
If it turns out as a not future proven or supported solution, I would like to know so I can look at alternatives… (It would be a real pitty because it has worked with 0 issues, but I just want to plan ahead...) -
for those following the bounty, got word from Marcelloc who tried another merge.
Seems not accepted yet though… ??? -
for those following the bounty, got word from Marcelloc who tried another merge.
Seems not accepted yet though… ???Has there been any update to the bountycode?
I'm thinking of updating to 2.2, but don't know if this will work.
Has anyone tried? Is it compatible with Unbound?
-
Has there been any update to the bountycode?
I've sent again a pull request to pfSense team before 2.2Release. Maybe it get merged to 2.3
-
I have been reading this with interest, and checked the updates on the repository https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/pull/816
Have you had a chance to resubmit Marcelloc?
-
I have been reading this with interest, and checked the updates on the repository https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/pull/816
Have you had a chance to resubmit Marcelloc?
While I cannot speak for marcelloc, let me note this: when you let something rot for ages and then close the pull req with "oh shit, it no longer applies" half year later, you generally do not get the contributor excited. When you do it twice in a row, getting the guy pissed off is almost guaranteed.
I find closing the pull request with "Patch has conflicts and cannot be merged." rather insulting, to put it mildly. No shit Sherlock, you've been sitting on it for 1,5 years. Now, do the legwork yourself, since it's your damned fault.
:(
-
Bummer. So back to square one ::)
I'm finding it difficult to understand why it isn't present as a standard functionality, and also why it seems difficult to get it integrated.
Marcello, anything we (I) can do in helping to get this code ported to whatever version is needed? Seriously. I'm willing to spend some time on it.
– yes... edited own post... It had no added value in its original state :-X --
-
Took me a while to find some time to check this out in depth, and found another "open" merge request:
https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/pull/1406Confused now. So it is still ongoing business? (hoping I'm right :) )
-
Hi,
Iam also watching the pull request and am interested in any news regarding this. I just hope, this work will not go to waste. -
Those patches no longer apply. It'd need to be done yet again.
-
Those patches no longer apply. It'd need to be done yet again.
Jeez! Again, really? :o
I feel bad for Marcelloc.
How many times must he redo the same thing because of core team not merging?
Does anyone know why pfsense coreteam are so reluctant to merge this request?
I mean, its a really nice feature that only makes pfsense a better and more competetive product.
-
Last version I got from Marcello works on 2.2.4.
Not sure what the problem is or why it is difficult to merge.
I too feel bad for the guy, 3 or 4 attempts, lost count in meantime ::) -
update: the latest version of the patch breaks IPSec. You'll end up with a nice error when you try to enable IPSec:```
Fatal error: Call to undefined function gen_subnetv4() in /etc/inc/vpn.incThis is due to the modified util.inc, where the part gen_subnetv4() is missing in total. Haven't had this error earlier on previous ipsec activations, suspecting it originates or in the latest version of Marcello's patch (post pfSense2.2) or with StrongSwan implementation of IPSEC. (Racoon worked fine) So now I have to decide on either have the good working dhcpd (which I need), or the IPSec (which I need) why o why me >:( -
As already noted, that patch is (yet again) no longer applicable and I very much doubt marcelloc will bother with rewriting it for the zillionth time. The developers probably absolutely hate the idea of using pfSense as a DHCP server. Never seen such retarded handling of a contributed no-brainer feature.
-
Marcello,
Are you interested in updating your changes in https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/pull/1406 such that they can be merged to master? I'm willing to pay an additional bounty for the update. I tried doing it myself, but there was one conflicting commit in particular https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/b5f6e690d40d0e0b7e16fd4adddb92d04c402ad6 that threw me off.
Thanks.
-
I could also pay an additional bounty to see this get merged in 2.3. I'm still using this in 2.2.6 and would hate to lose the functionality when 2.3 is released.
However, I would like the "Additional BOOTP/DHCP Options" to be included in the additional subnets.
Currently its not visible at all, and options from primary interface does not get propagated.
I can pledge an additional 50 US$ from my end.
-
I'll pull the code once more to get merged on 2.3 .
-
I'll pull the code once more to get merged on 2.3 .
Great news! Thanks for not giving up.
Any update on a dhcp-options related fix to the code for 2.3?
Let us know when it is merged and I'll transfer the funds.
-
I'll pull the code once more to get merged on 2.3 .
Awesome! I'll send $50 as well when it's ready for merge again.
-
What can we do to get the devs to actually put this into pfSense instead of relying on a bounty?
