[quote=“Ashley Rimmington, post: 39862, member: 27226”]Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part! Glad to say it worked like a charm!
Thank you so much for your help guys. 🙂
Just a thought here:
Might I suggest making this a part of the default install for a windows environment install? I say this because my server is available for me to configure (which made me think that the link above didn’t apply since mine wasn’t “unmodifiable”) but when following default install procedure the system didn’t work in the end. With this dnsMASQ setup it works beautifully though!
It just feels to me that this may be a required step for a windows server based DHCP setup.
Thanks again![/quote]
You are quite welcome!
But not necessarily true. Every environment is different. Most have the ability to edit the DHCP scope and have their file delivered correctly. Sometimes users don’t have access to the DHCP Scope because it is managed by someone else, or a third party and this is where DNSMASQ shines. Sometimes the file is not delivered completely and DNSMASQ helps to resolve the issue (I suspect this is the issue you actually faced.)
A Further problem I see, is that Ubuntu 12.04.4, 12.04.5 and 14.04, 14.10 have started including dnsmasq-base in the installation to help with dns resolution. This is a poor decision by conical, IMHO, and has lead to issues with installing and starting DNSMASQ. This would lead to causing FOG installation to fail unless you render your internet useless and try to install FOG… no wait FOG needs the internet to download modules for installation, this sounds bad already 😕
What I think was happening in your environment, is probably what is happening in mine. The file was not being passed entirely and DNSMASQ has helped to resolve this issue. I think DNSMASQ would be a good default module to install with FOG by asking a few questions and creating the file according to the responses, but having FOG install DNSMASQ and use it by default could be nasty and ugly.
I’m glad DNSMASQ worked for you though 🙂
