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: Strange behavior No Gateway address after successful IP
lease on ISC DHCP Server 4.1 (Patrick Trapp)
2. Re: Strange behavior No Gateway address after successful IP
lease on ISC DHCP Server 4.1 (Muhammad Faisal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:33:24 +0000
From: Patrick Trapp <[email protected]>
To: Muhammad Faisal <[email protected]>, Users of ISC DHCP
<[email protected]>, Judy Hao <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Strange behavior No Gateway address after successful IP
lease on ISC DHCP Server 4.1
Message-ID:
<1d507d610594d14f86d40d77c17e9e6626409...@exchangedsb.ruralnex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I don't believe you answered Judy's question. Related to that - is there a
static entry on this workstation that is conflicting with what DHCP would be
returning?
You looked at the messages between the client and server. Did you confirm that
the packets coming from the DHCP server have the data you expect?
Are there other Gigaset SX686 on the network? That is, when you are comparing
your failing host to a working host, are you comparing it to a similar piece of
hardware? I'm curious about the implication that the Message Size parameter is
only being sent from a single host - what is the DHCP server's response to that
parameter, if any?
________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on
behalf of Muhammad Faisal [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:50 PM
To: Judy Hao; Users of ISC DHCP
Subject: Re: Strange behavior No Gateway address after successful IP lease on
ISC DHCP Server 4.1
Hi Judy,
Thanks for your response.
There is only one dhcp client which has unusual behavior. Rest of the clients
are normally working on the same server. Any clue?
Regards, Muhammad Faisal.
________________________________
From: Judy Hao <[email protected]>
To: Muhammad Faisal <[email protected]>; Users of ISC DHCP
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 3:41 AM
Subject: RE: Strange behavior No Gateway address after successful IP lease on
ISC DHCP Server 4.1
As far as I understand, you can have only one default route and the router must
be reachable on your Linux host. Check whether there is already a default route
on your DHCP client host. Also check whether you can ping the router (10.0.0.1,
10.0.0.2 in your case) on your DHCP client host.
Thanks,
Judy
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Muhammad Faisal
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Strange behavior No Gateway address after successful IP lease on ISC
DHCP Server 4.1
Hello Experts,
We have configured the DHCP Server using ISC DHCP server version 4.1 on CentOS.
The server deployment remain successful and most of the host are acquiring IP
address normally. On of the host is successfully acquiring IP but not the
default gateway which is defined in the server as "option routers" parameter
under dhcp scope.
I have tried to compare the message of working host with that of problematic
one the following differences I have found:
1- Message Size parameter is sent by the problematic client which is a modem
Gigaset SX686
2- All the messages are same on both problematic client and normal client
3- DHCP is successfully leasing the IP
I have tried hit and trials but no success. The server is operating with
default parameters. Can someone please suggest.
# see 'man 5 dhcpd.conf'
#
ddns-update-style none;
authoritative;
one-lease-per-client true;
log-facility local0;
default-lease-time 600;
max-lease-time 600;
get-lease-hostnames false;
# parameters for LAN
subnet 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
option routers 10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2;
option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
option broadcast-address 10.0.0.255;
option domain-name-servers 10.0.0.3, 8.8.8.8;
option interface-mtu 1500;
range 10.0.0.4 10.0.0.254;
}
Regards, Muhammad Faisal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20151028/b540b81b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:39:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: Muhammad Faisal <[email protected]>
To: Patrick Trapp <[email protected]>, Users of ISC DHCP
<[email protected]>, Judy Hao <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Strange behavior No Gateway address after successful IP
lease on ISC DHCP Server 4.1
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Patrick,No static entry on work station. I'm preparing to test with a
different device to verify the behavior. Currently we have 2x routers defined I
will check it with single router IP.
Yes ?verified the DHCP packets the required information is there in the dhcp
options.
Yes, only Gigaset-SX686 is send message size parameter in client side signaling.
I will share the feedback one have tested as mentioned in the
begining.?Regards, Muhammad Faisal.
From: Patrick Trapp <[email protected]>
To: Muhammad Faisal <[email protected]>; Users of ISC DHCP
<[email protected]>; Judy Hao <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 6:33 PM
Subject: RE: Strange behavior No Gateway address after successful IP lease on
ISC DHCP Server 4.1
I don't believe you answered Judy's question. Related to that - is there a
static entry on this workstation that is conflicting with what DHCP would be
returning?
You looked at the messages between the client and server. Did you confirm that
the packets coming from the DHCP server have the data you expect?
Are there other Gigaset SX686 on the network? That is, when you are comparing
your failing host to a working host, are you comparing it to a similar piece of
hardware? I'm curious about the implication that the Message Size parameter is
only being sent from a single host - what is the DHCP server's response to that
parameter, if any?
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on
behalf of Muhammad Faisal [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:50 PM
To: Judy Hao; Users of ISC DHCP
Subject: Re: Strange behavior No Gateway address after successful IP lease on
ISC DHCP Server 4.1
Hi Judy,Thanks for your response.There is only one dhcp client which has
unusual behavior. Rest of the clients are normally working on the same server.
Any clue??Regards, Muhammad Faisal.
From: Judy Hao <[email protected]>
To: Muhammad Faisal <[email protected]>; Users of ISC DHCP
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 3:41 AM
Subject: RE: Strange behavior No Gateway address after successful IP lease on
ISC DHCP Server 4.1
#yiv9886018642 #yiv9886018642 -- -- filtered
{font-family:Helvetica;}#yiv9886018642 filtered
{font-family:Helvetica;}#yiv9886018642 filtered
{font-family:Calibri;}#yiv9886018642 filtered
{font-family:Tahoma;}#yiv9886018642 p.yiv9886018642MsoNormal, #yiv9886018642
li.yiv9886018642MsoNormal, #yiv9886018642 div.yiv9886018642MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9886018642 a:link,
#yiv9886018642 span.yiv9886018642MsoHyperlink
{color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9886018642 a:visited,
#yiv9886018642 span.yiv9886018642MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9886018642
span.yiv9886018642EmailStyle17 {color:#44546A;}#yiv9886018642
.yiv9886018642MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv9886018642 filtered
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv9886018642 #yiv9886018642 BODY
{direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}#yiv9886018642
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}As far as I understand, you can have only on
e default route and the router must be reachable on your Linux host. Check
whether there is already a default route on your DHCP client host. Also check
whether you can ping the router (10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2 in your case) on your DHCP
client host.?Thanks,Judy?
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Muhammad Faisal
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Strange behavior No Gateway address after successful IP lease on ISC
DHCP Server 4.1?Hello Experts,We have configured the DHCP Server using ISC DHCP
server version 4.1 on CentOS. The server deployment remain successful and most
of the host are acquiring IP address normally. On of the host is successfully
acquiring IP but not the default gateway which is defined in the server as
"option routers" parameter under dhcp scope.?I have tried to compare the
message of working host with that of problematic one the following differences
I have found:?1- Message Size parameter is sent by the problematic client which
is a modem Gigaset SX6862- All the messages are same on both problematic client
and normal client?3- DHCP is successfully leasing the IP?I have tried hit and
trials but no success. The server is operating with default parameters. Can
someone please suggest.?# ? see 'man 5 dhcpd.conf'#ddns-update-style
none;authoritative;one-lease-per-client true;log-facility local0;
default-lease-time 600;max-lease-time 600;get-lease-hostnames false;# ?
parameters for LAN? ? ? ? subnet 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {? ? ? ? option
routers 10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2;? ? ? ? option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;? ? ? ?
option broadcast-address 10.0.0.255;????????option domain-name-servers
10.0.0.3, 8.8.8.8;? ? ? ? option interface-mtu 1500;? ? ? ? range 10.0.0.4
10.0.0.254;}?Regards, Muhammad Faisal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20151028/c080eeb1/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
dhcp-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
End of dhcp-users Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23
******************************************
