Dave, Cool! I looked all over and couldn't find those instructions. I would really appreciate it if you would point me to them. I'd like to try this out.
thanks, -Moriah Dave Miner wrote: > Moriah Waterland wrote: >> Bruce, >> >> According to the docs and other sources it doesn't appear to be possible >> to set up two active Solaris DHCP servers on the same subnet and achieve >> consistent and predictable behavior. However, it does seem to be >> possible to set up your desired environment using two ISC DHCP servers. >> I believe that you would need to configure each of those servers to only >> respond to a specified set of MAC addresses. FYI, I am planning on >> trying this and will let you know what I come up with. >> > > You can do this with the Solaris DHCP server, too, though ISC has some > features that *can* make this easier in some circumstances. Setting up > manual assignments is the only way you'll get predictable behavior with > multiple DHCP servers on the same link, no matter whose server you're > using - it's inherent in the way the protocol works. > > Dave > > >> I am cc'ing my response to networking-discuss. I know that some of the >> folks on that alias have a lot of expertise in this area. >> >> thanks, >> Moriah >> >> >> >> >> Bruce Rothermal wrote: >>> Hi, Good Morning >>> >>> I saw some discussion going on here about DHCP and installadm. I >>> wondering if anybody on this list can point me to the DHCP expert for >>> OpenSolaris. I need to setup an environment which has 2 DHCP servers >>> and make then work together. >>> >>> One DHCP server is Solaris 10 and we have these procedures down. The >>> other has to be on OpenSolaris. So far using the tools available we >>> have not figured out how to tell the DHCP server you are in >>> >>> Address space 10.134.0.0 netmask 255.225.224.0 >>> So addresses will be from 10.134.0.0 to 10.134.31.254 >>> manage and assign addresses from 10.134.3.0 - 10.134.3.31 with a >>> given mac to IP address ta >>> >>> We can know how to tell the Solaris dhcp server to not manage >>> 10.134.3.0 - 10.134.3.31 while the OpenSolaris dhcp server is online >>> but we don't know how to tell the OpenSolaris dhcp server to ignore >>> the rest or the 10.134.0.0 address space. >>> >>> Also this is a test environment so the address range that the >>> opensolaris dhcp server will manage will change as system hardware is >>> reallocated over time. We don't own all the systems, we sort of rent >>> and we have to play nice within the whole. >>> >>> Any help will be very greatly appreciated. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> Bruce Rothermal >>> Email: bruce.rothermal at sun.com >>> Skype: bruce.rothermal >>> Google Talk: bruce.rothermal at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >> Subject: [networking-discuss] ISC DHCP Actions... >> From: James Carlson (jame... at sun.com) >> Date: Sep 26, 2008 2:52:39 pm >> List: org.opensolaris.networking-discuss >> >> Harely Race writes: >> >> Thanks for the quick reply. The second link was where I saw a >> "discussion" of >> replacing Sun dhcpd with ISC's. I was just wondering if it had taken >> off the >> ground or had the whole "proposal" be scrubbed. >> >> As far as I know, no. >> >> "Anyone can complain ..." >> >> I take it that you really don't like people complaing? Yes, it can be >> tiresome >> at times and demoralizing at other times, but sometimes it does one good >> to at >> least hear out the complaint. >> >> No ... I guess I should have been more verbose in my answer. >> >> There's a big difference between saying "we should ditch that awful X >> code and replace it with Y code!" on a mailing list on one hand, and >> actually having a coherent _plan_ to make such a replacement on the >> other. It's that latter part that I haven't seen for ISC DHCP. >> >> Simply ripping out the existing DHCP server and tossing in the ISC one >> is -- I believe -- a non-starter. It would instantly break all of the >> people currently *using* the existing DHCP server. There must at least >> be an upgrade strategy or facility that makes the replacement *possible*. >> >> Second, someone needs to look into the features of the existing DHCP >> server and figure out how they match up against the ISC one. Where the >> ISC one lacks a feature or lags in performance, that someone would have >> to figure out whether that feature "matters" to the users (and thus >> could be dropped) or whether the ISC server needs to be fixed. >> >> Finally, someone has to do the actual engineering work to remove the >> packages for the old server, put the new one in place, and test the heck >> out of it, including all the machinery used for upgrades. >> >> Note that allowing them to "co-exist" isn't a reasonable option, as it >> just foists the costs off onto the users, who have to determine which >> one to use, and have to cope (somehow!) with projects that target >> integration with one or the other server, but not both. (As in "sure, >> you can use our new WhizBang platform, but you have to turn off the ISC >> server and use Sun's because we haven't bothered to deliver the new >> options needed for ISC.") >> >> Another reason why "co-existing" isn't a good answer is that for users >> who want that, they can already do it *today*. Just download the ISC >> server and run it. Having an integrated and supported answer is much >> more work than just adding yet more packages to the system. >> >> I think complaining is nice, and might even motivate someone to do >> something, but it's not the equivalent of work, or anything like a >> "plan." Hence my comment: anyone can complain ... but having a plan >> takes work. >> >> Harely Race writes: >> >> Piotr Jasiukajtis wrote: >> >> "Indeed. Solaris DHCP Server is much better then ISC dhcpd." >> >> What makes it so much more superior than ISC's implementation? Can it >> function >> as a PXE server? >> >> Of course. That's how we use it ourselves for net-installing x86 >> systems. I've used both, and I find Sun's easier to set up and learn to >> use. But I guess that's just me. >> >> -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun >> Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS >> UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 >> _______________________________________________ >> caiman-discuss mailing list >> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >
