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. 20 minute leases (Friesen, Don MTIC:EX)
2. Re: 20 minute leases (Simon Hobson)
3. Re: 20 minute leases (Gregory Sloop)
4. RE: 20 minute leases (Friesen, Don MTIC:EX)
5. Re: key conflict message for create host by Omapi (dave c)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:08:08 +0000
From: "Friesen, Don MTIC:EX" <[email protected]>
To: "'Users of ISC DHCP'" <[email protected]>
Subject: 20 minute leases
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20151026/524595e8/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:16:39 +0000
From: Simon Hobson <[email protected]>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 20 minute leases
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"Friesen, Don MTIC:EX" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Are you running failover ? If so then this is normal operation.
With failover, on the first issue of a lease, it's for time MCLT - this allows
for the servers to then synchronise the lease information before the client
comes back to renew a short time later. On the next renew, the clients will get
the full defined lease time.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 07:22:02 -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"
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20151026/c43395df/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:35:26 +0000
From: "Friesen, Don MTIC:EX" <[email protected]>
To: "'Users of ISC DHCP'" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 20 minute leases
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20151026/45606b5c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:56:28 -0500
From: dave c <[email protected]>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: key conflict message for create host by Omapi
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
What are you setting the "key" to in your OMAPI call? If you are using the MAC
Address or the
customer name, there's your problem right there.
I suggest you use the MAC and the IP address for the KEY so that it's unique
per instance. The
MAC address is a field specified elsewhere in the OMAPI call.
The KEY can be anything, as long as it's unique.
BTW, disabling the unique key check on a database is never a good idea. There
will be areas that
do a select based upon the key and expect one and only one answer to come back.
Dave
On 10/22/15 10:47, Clodoaldo de Borba Lambiase wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've tested the inclusion of the two different IPs with the same MAC address
> and It works fine like someone told here before. But, when I try do it by
> OMAPI protocol I receive the "key conflict" error message.
> It seems that DHCP restricts more by OMAPI than via dhcpd.conf.
>
> To solve this I *disabled* the "key conflict" test at the code. My php script
> already consists the IP/MAC before include by Omapi and I don't worry about
> incorrect inclusions.
>
> Unfortunately, I think that is not the best way to solve this.
> The best way would be apply the same DHCP behavior, during the reading of the
> dhcp.conf file, to the IP inclusion via OMAPI.
>
> PS: I need use the same MAC in different subnets because our clients connect
> notebooks and other devices in many places.
>
> Clodoaldo
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
--
Dave Calafrancesco
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
dhcp-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
End of dhcp-users Digest, Vol 84, Issue 19
******************************************
