Send dhcp-users mailing list submissions to
dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
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
dhcp-users-requ...@lists.isc.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
dhcp-users-ow...@lists.isc.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of dhcp-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Request on offered address gives "unknown lease" (Peter Rathlev)
2. Re: Request on offered address gives "unknown lease"
(Peter Rathlev)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:10:39 +0200
From: Peter Rathlev <pe...@rathlev.dk>
To: dhcp-users <dhcp-us...@isc.org>
Subject: Request on offered address gives "unknown lease"
Message-ID: <1508843439.19864.17.ca...@rathlev.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Dear all,
We're testing some new software on a client device (a switch) and can
see that it doesn't get an IP address lease correctly. Considering the
error appeared when we started testing the new software we're convinced
it's the client's fault. Still I would like to understand what goes
wrong. The server is a v4.3.6b1 failover setup. Both servers log the
same messages, I have only included from the primary below.
We see ostensibly correct DISCOVER packets, followed but OFFERs from
the servers as usual. And then a REQUEST from the client, but one which
the server doesn't seem to like. It logs "unknown lease" even though
the IP address matches the offer.
How would one troubleshoot this? As mentioned, we're pretty sure the
client is at fault.
The server logs the following:
Oct 24 12:31:25 gauss dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
(NEXANS-00C0292643FA) via 10.230.177.2
Oct 24 12:31:25 gauss dhcpd: DHCPOFFER on 10.230.177.173 to 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
(NEXANS-00C0292643FA) via 10.230.177.2
Oct 24 12:31:25 gauss dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
(NEXANS-00C0292643FA) via 10.230.177.2
Oct 24 12:31:25 gauss dhcpd: DHCPOFFER on 10.230.177.173 to 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
(NEXANS-00C0292643FA) via 10.230.177.2
Oct 24 12:31:25 gauss dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
(NEXANS-00C0292643FA) via 10.230.177.3
Oct 24 12:31:25 gauss dhcpd: DHCPOFFER on 10.230.177.173 to 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
(NEXANS-00C0292643FA) via 10.230.177.3
Oct 24 12:31:25 gauss dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 10.230.177.173 (10.83.45.30) from
00:c0:29:26:43:fa via 10.230.177.2: unknown lease 10.230.177.173.
Oct 24 12:31:25 gauss dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 10.230.177.173 (10.83.45.30) from
00:c0:29:26:43:fa via 10.230.177.2: unknown lease 10.230.177.173.
Oct 24 12:31:25 gauss dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 10.230.177.173 (10.83.45.30) from
00:c0:29:26:43:fa via 10.230.177.3: unknown lease 10.230.177.173.
Capturing the packets doesn't reveal anything that to my eye seems out
of the ordinary. Below is an example transaction -- the UDP checksum
warning on sent packets is caused by offloading.
Can anyone spot what makes the server say "unknown lease" to something
it just offered?
1) DISCOVER:
12:31:25.276152 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 251, id 31051, offset 0, flags [none], proto
UDP (17), length 328)
????10.230.177.2.67 > 10.83.45.30.67: [udp sum ok] BOOTP/DHCP, Request from
00:c0:29:26:43:fa, length 300, hops 1, xid 0x534b4895, secs 4321, Flags
[Broadcast] (0x8000)
??????Gateway-IP 10.230.177.2
??????Client-Ethernet-Address 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
??????Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions
????????Magic Cookie 0x63825363
????????DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: Discover
????????Vendor-Class Option 60, length 7: "266:074"
????????Client-ID Option 61, length 7: ether 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
????????Hostname Option 12, length 19: "NEXANS-00C0292643FA"
????????Parameter-Request Option 55, length 5:?
??????????Subnet-Mask, Default-Gateway, Hostname, TFTP
??????????BF
????????END Option 255, length 0
????????PAD Option 0, length 0, occurs 10
2) OFFER:
12:31:25.276399 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 60569, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP
(17), length 355)
????10.83.45.30.67 > 10.230.177.2.67: [bad udp cksum 0xf4b9 -> 0xfaba!]
BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 327, hops 1, xid 0x534b4895, secs 4321, Flags
[Broadcast] (0x8000)
??????Your-IP 10.230.177.173
??????Server-IP 10.83.247.20
??????Gateway-IP 10.230.177.2
??????Client-Ethernet-Address 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
??????Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions
????????Magic Cookie 0x63825363
????????DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: Offer
????????Server-ID Option 54, length 4: 10.83.45.30
????????Lease-Time Option 51, length 4: 900
????????Subnet-Mask Option 1, length 4: 255.255.255.0
????????Default-Gateway Option 3, length 4: 10.230.177.1
????????TFTP Option 66, length 12: "10.83.12.190"
????????BF Option 67, length 43: "/266:074/10.230.177/NEXANS-00C0292643FA.cfg"
????????END Option 255, length 0
3) REQUESTs:
12:31:25.287800 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 251, id 31059, offset 0, flags [none], proto
UDP (17), length 330)
????10.230.177.2.67 > 10.83.45.30.67: [udp sum ok] BOOTP/DHCP, Request from
00:c0:29:26:43:fa, length 302, hops 1, xid 0x534b4895, secs 4321, Flags
[Broadcast] (0x8000)
??????Client-IP 255.255.255.255
??????Gateway-IP 10.230.177.2
??????Client-Ethernet-Address 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
??????Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions
????????Magic Cookie 0x63825363
????????DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: Request
????????Vendor-Class Option 60, length 7: "266:074"
????????Client-ID Option 61, length 7: ether 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
????????Requested-IP Option 50, length 4: 10.230.177.173
????????Server-ID Option 54, length 4: 10.83.45.30
????????Hostname Option 12, length 19: "NEXANS-00C0292643FA"
????????Parameter-Request Option 55, length 5:?
??????????Subnet-Mask, Default-Gateway, Hostname, TFTP
??????????BF
????????END Option 255, length 0
12:31:25.287842 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 251, id 31060, offset 0, flags [none], proto
UDP (17), length 330)
????10.230.177.2.67 > 10.83.45.30.67: [udp sum ok] BOOTP/DHCP, Request from
00:c0:29:26:43:fa, length 302, hops 1, xid 0x534b4895, secs 4321, Flags
[Broadcast] (0x8000)
??????Client-IP 255.255.255.255
??????Gateway-IP 10.230.177.2
??????Client-Ethernet-Address 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
??????Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions
????????Magic Cookie 0x63825363
????????DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: Request
????????Vendor-Class Option 60, length 7: "266:074"
????????Client-ID Option 61, length 7: ether 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
????????Requested-IP Option 50, length 4: 10.230.177.173
????????Server-ID Option 54, length 4: 10.83.45.30
????????Hostname Option 12, length 19: "NEXANS-00C0292643FA"
????????Parameter-Request Option 55, length 5:?
??????????Subnet-Mask, Default-Gateway, Hostname, TFTP
??????????BF
????????END Option 255, length 0
12:31:25.288727 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 249, id 11221, offset 0, flags [none], proto
UDP (17), length 330)
????10.230.177.3.67 > 10.83.45.30.67: [udp sum ok] BOOTP/DHCP, Request from
00:c0:29:26:43:fa, length 302, hops 1, xid 0x534b4895, secs 4321, Flags
[Broadcast] (0x8000)
??????Client-IP 255.255.255.255
??????Gateway-IP 10.230.177.3
??????Client-Ethernet-Address 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
??????Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions
????????Magic Cookie 0x63825363
????????DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: Request
????????Vendor-Class Option 60, length 7: "266:074"
????????Client-ID Option 61, length 7: ether 00:c0:29:26:43:fa
????????Requested-IP Option 50, length 4: 10.230.177.173
????????Server-ID Option 54, length 4: 10.83.45.30
????????Hostname Option 12, length 19: "NEXANS-00C0292643FA"
????????Parameter-Request Option 55, length 5:?
??????????Subnet-Mask, Default-Gateway, Hostname, TFTP
??????????BF
????????END Option 255, length 0
We tried clearing the leases (omitting them from the pool altogether
and restarting) but saw the exact same error on new addresses.
Thank you in advance for any clues. :-)
--
Peter Rathlev
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:57:01 +0200
From: Peter Rathlev <pe...@rathlev.dk>
To: dhcp-users <dhcp-us...@isc.org>
Subject: Re: Request on offered address gives "unknown lease"
Message-ID: <1508846221.19864.23.ca...@rathlev.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 13:10 +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
> We're testing some new software on a client device (a switch) and can
> see that it doesn't get an IP address lease correctly. Considering
> the error appeared when we started testing the new software we're
> convinced it's the client's fault.
Bonus info: When we move the switch to a network served by a Windows
DHCP server (not sure exactly what version, but probably Windows Server
2012) the switch accepts a lease.
The switch doesn't log anything, it seems to just see an unanswered
request.
And to the perceptive: Yes, I copy+pasted some wrong packets, one of
them is from a different relay than the other. The contents are the
same though. (There are two Cisco L3 switch relays and two servers.)
- -
Peter
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
dhcp-users mailing list
dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
------------------------------
End of dhcp-users Digest, Vol 108, Issue 13
*******************************************
