OIC. Didn't realize that DHCP in your environment is handled by AD. My cobbler environment, like a lot of others, manages DHCP directly. I haven't tried it, but I believe that cobbler systems are actually able to negotiate with other DHCP servers, possibly including AD servers.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Brandon Young <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmmm. I see the error in how I understood the next-server option to work. > Thinking through it some more, I can see the maintenance overhead of this > method isn't as bad as I originally assessed it to be. BUT, to answer your > question about how it might not suit my needs, here's a contrived but > believable example: > > > > Background: > DNS and DHCP are handled by AD on our networks. Linux admins do not muck > around in AD, thus we must request a Windows admin to do so. Similarly, the > network admin doesn't like Windows or Linux admins mucking with switch > configs. > > MAC Address Scenario: > I have a new workstation (we'll call it workstation1). Workstation1 starts > life at my organization as a Windows box. We register its MAC with DHCP to > point it at Altiris PXE server, and dump an image on it. Some time later, > the original end user leaves. Their replacement would prefer a Linux box. > I come along and wish to make use of my Cobbler server to kickstart > workstation1. I must now get a friendly Windows admin to go into the DHCP > config and associate the MAC address with the Cobbler server next-server > entry. Plus, I can imagine that MAC address list getting pretty unweildy. > I mean, today we only have 1500 machines, but that could double pretty > quickly. It would be no fun trying to pick through that list for a specific > MAC. Not horrible, but somewhat inefficient. > > Subnetwork Scenario: > Workstation1 starts life at my organization as a Windows box, again. This > time, it's easy enough to point it at the Altiris PXE server based on its > VLAN. Windows get deployed. Some time later, the original end user > leaves. Their replacement would prefer a Linux box. I come along and wish > to make use of my Cobbler server to kickstart workstation1. I must now > either (a) haul the box away to an appropriate location that has a network > connection into a VLAN that would be pointed to Cobbler, kickstart it, and > bring it back; or (b) get the Network admin to temporarily change the VLAN > of the drop to which workstation1 is connected to. Again, not horrible, but > still probably even more inefficient than the MAC address scenario, due to > reliance on others to accomplish this. > > > > I am lazy and wish to avoid those little annoyances down the road, but I can > live with either of those scenarios. I was just searching for a simpler > option. > > Thank you all for your input. > > -- > Brandon > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Terry McIntyre <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> The proposal is that the DHCP server ( or servers, since it is >> possible for two to share the duty ) will offer one "next-server" PXE >> to each particular client. The decision as to which "next server" to >> use could be based upon MAC address, or subnetwork, depending upon >> your needs. It looks to me like some of your machines would want to >> PXE boot from the cobbler server, some from the Alteris server; if >> this doesn't suit your needs, I can't figure out why. >> >> Here's the flow: client asks for DHCP server; DHCP server feeds >> "next-server" info to client; client uses next-server info to request >> PXE boot. The DHCP server can particularize the next-server address to >> fit the client. >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Brandon Young <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Thank you for being so patient and helpful, Michael. >> > >> > I guess I am not clear how the DHCP next-server parameter would help me. >> > Here's how I imagine it might work: Suppose there are two PXE servers on >> > the >> > same network/VLAN/subnet. Both are listed as next-server entries in >> > DHCP. >> > A client performs a DHCP DISCOVER request for a PXE Server, and both >> > server >> > addresses are returned to the client by the DHCP server. The client >> > then >> > sends a PXE boot request to both servers. Server A is configured to >> > only >> > respond to a list of known clients right away, Server B will respond to >> > all >> > clients after some short delay (thus giving the Server A time to respond >> > to >> > the client first, if it's going to). The requesting client gets a >> > response >> > from one or both of these servers, and begins its TFTP download of the >> > network boot program (pxelinux.0 in our case, right?), as directed by >> > the >> > first responder. >> > >> > Is this a reasonable approximation of what you're proposing to me? If >> > so, >> > the constraint I am attempting to work under is both Altiris (Server A) >> > and >> > Cobbler (Server B) need the flexibility to be able to respond to any >> > arbitrary client, not just a list of known clients. I'm trying to avoid >> > making each server only available to certain networks/vlans/subnets, if >> > possible; though, it is an option we're willing to use if nothing else >> > will >> > work. In our organization, we have sevaral VLANs that span across two >> > geographic locations that, ideally, would have access to both Altiris >> > and >> > Cobbler Install servers. I'm shooting for the ability to sit down at >> > any >> > workstation at any location, select PXE boot, and have the ability to >> > choose >> > Altiris or Cobbler. >> > >> > Maybe I should start at a more basic level to understand what's going >> > on: at >> > the point I see the blue Cobbler Menu screen on my client computer, have >> > I >> > pxe booted yet, or am I just looking at a PXE boot management screen? >> > I've >> > gotten the impression from various docs that you can chain pxe boots; >> > so, >> > you could pxe boot from server A, then have server A tell you to PXE >> > boot >> > from server B. I'm looking for a way to do that from Cobbler, if >> > possible. >> > >> > -- >> > Brandon >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Michael DeHaan <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Brandon Young wrote: >> >> > Thank you all for your responses. gPXE looks very promising. >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Brandon >> >> > >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > cobbler mailing list >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler >> >> > >> >> >> >> Can you elaborate as to why you'd prefer that to just configuring DHCP >> >> next-server parameters? >> >> >> >> --Michael >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> cobbler mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > cobbler mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Terry McIntyre >> UNIX for hire >> Software Development, Systems Administration, Security >> [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ >> cobbler mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler > > > _______________________________________________ > cobbler mailing list > [email protected] > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler > > -- Terry McIntyre UNIX for hire Software Development, Systems Administration, Security [email protected] _______________________________________________ cobbler mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler
