Send dhcp-users mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
Advertising
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of dhcp-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: 20 minute leases (Gregory Sloop)
2. Re: 20 minute leases (Mark Sandrock)
3. Re: 20 minute leases ([email protected])
4. Re: 20 minute leases (Alan Buxey)
5. Weird behavior with multiple pool inside shared networks
(Roberto De Oliveira)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:36:34 -0700
From: Gregory Sloop <[email protected]>
To: "'Users of ISC DHCP'" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 20 minute leases
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
You're looking for something more definitive, it seems - which I don't have. I
do believe that quite a lot of work went into fail-over since 4.1 - there are a
couple more options that help a fail-over situation survive a peer down
situation better [especially in a tight IP pool] and the like. So, I suspect
this change also occurred in between.
But I certainly don't know that's the case, or exactly why. Perhaps someone
else will chime in.
-Greg
Thanks Greg and Simon. Things I didn?t find when searching.
Yes we run failover. My question was really: Was this added between 4.1.1
and 4.2.5 ?
I skimmed the release notes and couldn?t find it. My users noticed this
after the migration from the 4.1.1 server to the 4.2.5 server, so I am thinking
the answer is yes. And I want to explain why it wasn?t happening before but is
now.
Don Friesen
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gregory Sloop
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 7:22 AM
To: 'Users of ISC DHCP'
Subject: Re: 20 minute leases
This sounds like a fail-over setup, where clients get the MCLT time for the
initial lease and then the full lease value after a renewal. This is so that
the fail-over servers can communicate and properly handle the client.
[Glenn had a great post I found that explains more about fail-over, MCLT and
initial lease times.]
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2015-February/018578.html
HTH
-Greg
Hopefully a quick question. We migrated some sites from a few old DHCP
servers running 4.1.1 to some not as old servers running 4.2.5. The users with
laptops began complaining about sporadic loss of IP connectivity. They noticed
they were getting 20 minutes leases instead of 24 hour leases. I watched the
traffic and it seems all initial leases to unknown MAC addresses get a 20
minute lease and on renewal get the 24 hour lease. This is not a complaint, I
like the idea of a trial lease. I just want to verify that the 4.1.1 version
did not have this behavior without having to recreate that environment. I?d
like to explain the behaviour to my users with a degree of confidence.
Don Friesen
--
Gregory Sloop, Principal: Sloop Network & Computer Consulting
Voice: 503.251.0452 x82
EMail: [email protected]
http://www.sloop.net
---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20151026/eae82a0d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:04:04 -0500
From: Mark Sandrock <[email protected]>
To: Greg Sloop <[email protected]>, Users of ISC DHCP
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 20 minute leases
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Don,
the loss of connectivity issue should have
nothing to do with the lease duration, as
any sane dhcp client renews at the lease
midway point, in any case.
This means that if your users had always
been getting a 20-minute initial lease time,
they might only have noticed that during
the first 10 minutes of the lease -- after that,
it would always be the 24-hour lease.
We had some users being losing network
connectivity about an hour after docking
their laptops on Monday morning; it turned
out to be a complex interaction between the
Cisco NAM Client, our DHCP failover peers,
and the Cisco switches doing DHCP Snooping.
Mark S
> On Oct 26, 2015, at 10:36, Gregory Sloop <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You're looking for something more definitive, it seems - which I don't have.
> I do believe that quite a lot of work went into fail-over since 4.1 - there
> are a couple more options that help a fail-over situation survive a peer down
> situation better [especially in a tight IP pool] and the like. So, I suspect
> this change also occurred in between.
>
> But I certainly don't know that's the case, or exactly why. Perhaps someone
> else will chime in.
>
> -Greg
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Greg and Simon. Things I didn?t find when searching.
>
> Yes we run failover. My question was really: Was this added between 4.1.1
> and 4.2.5 ?
>
> I skimmed the release notes and couldn?t find it. My users noticed this
> after the migration from the 4.1.1 server to the 4.2.5 server, so I am
> thinking the answer is yes. And I want to explain why it wasn?t happening
> before but is now.
>
> Don Friesen
>
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gregory Sloop
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 7:22 AM
> To: 'Users of ISC DHCP'
> Subject: Re: 20 minute leases
>
> This sounds like a fail-over setup, where clients get the MCLT time for the
> initial lease and then the full lease value after a renewal. This is so that
> the fail-over servers can communicate and properly handle the client.
>
> [Glenn had a great post I found that explains more about fail-over, MCLT and
> initial lease times.]
>
> https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2015-February/018578.html
>
> HTH
>
> -Greg
>
>
>
>
> Hopefully a quick question. We migrated some sites from a few old DHCP
> servers running 4.1.1 to some not as old servers running 4.2.5. The users
> with laptops began complaining about sporadic loss of IP connectivity. They
> noticed they were getting 20 minutes leases instead of 24 hour leases. I
> watched the traffic and it seems all initial leases to unknown MAC addresses
> get a 20 minute lease and on renewal get the 24 hour lease. This is not a
> complaint, I like the idea of a trial lease. I just want to verify that the
> 4.1.1 version did not have this behavior without having to recreate that
> environment. I?d like to explain the behaviour to my users with a degree of
> confidence.
>
> Don Friesen
>
>
> --
> Gregory Sloop, Principal: Sloop Network & Computer Consulting
> Voice: 503.251.0452 x82
> EMail: [email protected]
> http://www.sloop.net
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20151026/875d1aa7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:15:43 +0100 (CET)
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: 20 minute leases
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
> Yes we run failover. My question was really: Was this added between
> 4.1.1 and 4.2.5 ?
No, this is an integral part of the failover protocol, and has worked
that way for many years - certainly since we started using ISC DHCP
at version 3.<something>.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [email protected]
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:57:28 +0000
From: Alan Buxey <[email protected]>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 20 minute leases
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Avoided the fail over in 3.x ;)
Happy using it with 4.x though :)
alan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20151026/8a9e687c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:48:43 -0430
From: Roberto De Oliveira <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Weird behavior with multiple pool inside shared networks
Message-ID:
<CAGYoUsvmgLpMBqqgtHABKoonWdQwbZfCGvuG=ybo+4b4+zt...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I have a weird behavior on my dhcp-server, I am using a load balance
configuration and using multiple pool inside that shared-network, I have
this configuration:
shared-network "my-shared-network" {
subnet 186.88.128.0 netmask 255.255.224.0 {
option subnet-mask 255.255.224.0;
option routers 186.88.128.1;
pool {
range 186.88.128.2 186.88.159.254;
failover peer "my-failover";
}
}
subnet 186.90.0.0 netmask 255.255.224.0 {
option subnet-mask 255.255.224.0;
option routers 186.90.0.1;
pool {
range 186.90.0.2 186.90.31.254;
failover peer "my-failover";
}
}
}
Works fine for subnet 186.88.128.0, but when I receive packages from subnet
186.90.0.0 my servers offers IP from subnet 186.88.128.0, what I see on
logs:
Oct 26 18:22:09 my-server dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 60:e7:01:4d:f9:3f via
186.90.0.1
Oct 26 18:22:09 my-server dhcpd: DHCPOFFER on 186.88.139.127 to
60:e7:01:4d:f9:3f via 186.90.0.1
Oct 26 18:22:09 my-server dhcpd: DHCPRELEASE of 186.88.139.127 from
60:e7:01:4d:f9:3f via 186.90.0.1 (found)
What is wrong with my configuration?
P.D: All DHCPDISCOVER comes from the same IP, for example: 172.16.25.40
Thanks in advance
--
Saludos,
Roberto De Oliveira
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20151026/a9db8564/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
dhcp-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
End of dhcp-users Digest, Vol 84, Issue 20
******************************************
