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. Re: Peer rebalancing problems (Chris Buxton)
2. Re: Peer rebalancing problems (Simon Hobson)
3. Re: Peer rebalancing problems (Chris Buxton)
4. Re: Dynamic client host-name (Option 12) (Bill Shirley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 09:54:14 -0700
From: Chris Buxton <cli...@buxtonfamily.us>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: Peer rebalancing problems
Message-ID: <8bd14b09-cbd6-4b60-b790-97628e53e...@buxtonfamily.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
You may also need to clean up the dhcpd.leases file, to remove failover-related
states and such.
Regards,
Chris Buxton
> On Sep 3, 2019, at 1:07 PM, Norman Elton <normel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just to confirm ... remove the failover declaration from one server,
> and the entire subnet from the other server?
>
> Norman
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:02 PM Bob Harold <rharo...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I remove the subnet from failover, so it only has one DHCP server, then
>> after the servers settle, add failover back in. It is a pain, but I have
>> not found a better solution.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Harold
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:44 PM Norman Elton <normel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, I just discovered this nugget:
>>>
>>> landlord01: peer wm-dhcp-01-02: Got POOLREQ, answering negatively!
>>> Peer may be out of leases or database inconsistent.
>>>
>>> I will start googling and post if I discover anything.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Norman
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:41 PM Norman Elton <normel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've seen references to this in previous posts, but no clear
>>>> resolution. I've got two RHEL6 boxes (dhcp-4.1.1-63.P1.el6_10) setup
>>>> in a failover pair. I discovered this morning that one server was
>>>> stuck in "communications-interrupted" state. Turns out there were two
>>>> dhcpd processes running simultaneously. Not sure how that happened,
>>>> but shockingly, it wasn't happy.
>>>>
>>>> I've restarted both servers, we're back in normal failover state. But
>>>> one of my subnets is still not balancing out:
>>>>
>>>> landlord01: balancing pool 55814b7e0ad0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF total 2970
>>>> free 58 backup 320 lts -131 max-own (+/-)38
>>>> landlord01: balanced pool 55814b7e0ad0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF total 2970
>>>> free 58 backup 320 lts -131 max-misbal 57
>>>> landlord02: balancing pool 55d8e05a4aa0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF total 2970
>>>> free 353 backup 0 lts -176 max-own (+/-)35 (requesting peer
>>>> rebalance!)
>>>> landlord02: balanced pool 55d8e05a4aa0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF total 2970
>>>> free 353 backup 0 lts -176 max-misbal 53
>>>>
>>>> It seems a little strange that both servers have a negative LTS value.
>>>> And that they're so different. Is this explainable somehow?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Norman
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcp-users mailing list
>>> dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
>>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcp-users mailing list
>> dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 18:41:09 +0100
From: Simon Hobson <dh...@thehobsons.co.uk>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: Peer rebalancing problems
Message-ID: <4b53aaad-508a-41a4-8330-fda70d707...@thehobsons.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Chris Buxton <cli...@buxtonfamily.us> wrote:
>> Just to confirm ... remove the failover declaration from one server,
>> and the entire subnet from the other server?
> You may also need to clean up the dhcpd.leases file, to remove
> failover-related states and such.
Won't that be automatic ?
Removing the subnet entirely from one server will cause it to delete all the
lease information it holds for that subnet. Won't removing the failover
declaration from the other server trigger it to remove the failover state from
it's leases ?
It's a question, not a statement dressed as a question. I haven't used failover
- but I have seen leases cleaned out on removing a subnet (or reducing a
pool/range) declaration. So removing failover stuff from leases would be a
logical thing to happen if the failover declaration is removed.
Simon
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 11:13:04 -0700
From: Chris Buxton <cli...@buxtonfamily.us>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: Peer rebalancing problems
Message-ID: <4ef28eaf-f9b2-4566-90a0-79887b936...@buxtonfamily.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> On Sep 4, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Simon Hobson <dh...@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Chris Buxton <cli...@buxtonfamily.us> wrote:
>
>>> Just to confirm ... remove the failover declaration from one server,
>>> and the entire subnet from the other server?
>
>> You may also need to clean up the dhcpd.leases file, to remove
>> failover-related states and such.
>
> Won't that be automatic ?
> Removing the subnet entirely from one server will cause it to delete all the
> lease information it holds for that subnet. Won't removing the failover
> declaration from the other server trigger it to remove the failover state
> from it's leases ?
>
> It's a question, not a statement dressed as a question. I haven't used
> failover - but I have seen leases cleaned out on removing a subnet (or
> reducing a pool/range) declaration. So removing failover stuff from leases
> would be a logical thing to happen if the failover declaration is removed.
Yes, it gets cleaned out on the server that no longer serves the subnet.
However, we (BlueCat) have seen that not get cleaned up in the past on the
remaining server. Specifically for the procedure under discussion, that
leftover cruft causes the rebuild of the failover relationship to fail.
That may have been fixed in a later version, though. I'm not sure if it's still
an issue.
Regards,
Chris Buxton
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 16:57:32 -0400
From: Bill Shirley <b...@c3po.polymerindustries.biz>
To: dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic client host-name (Option 12)
Message-ID:
<7718d828-6629-1389-2033-e955e46d6...@c3po.polymerindustries.biz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
I use fqdn.fqdn:
subnet 192.168.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
??? ddns-updates??? ??? ??? on;
??? ddns-domainname??? ???? "example.com";
??? option domain-name??? ? "example.com";
??? option fqdn.fqdn??? ??? = concat(config-option server.ddns-hostname, ".",
config-option server.ddns-domainname);
You didn't post hw_mac_short.? You could use something like this:
ddns-hostname = concat("mta-", binary-to-ascii(16, 8, "", substring(hardware,
4, 3)));
This uses the last three bytes of the MAC address. Put this before the subnet
definition.
Bill
On 8/30/2019 4:06 PM, Dave M wrote:
> I have clients (eMTA) who request a hostname parameter. It is easy to create
> static entries and provide clients with an
> hostname back but I can't manage to do it dynamically.
>
> I have the rest of my configuration working fine except that one line:
>
> ? ? ? ? subnet 172.16.52.0 netmask 255.255.254.0
> ? ? ? ? {
> ??????????????? allow leasequery;
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? option routers 172.16.53.254;
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? option broadcast-address 172.16.53.255;
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? option domain-name-servers 172.16.64.15 ;
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ddns-hostname = concat("mta-", hw_mac_short);
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ddns-domainname "emta.lab.com <http://emta.lab.com>.";
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? host-name = concat("mta-", hw_mac_short); -----> not working
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? option domain-name "emta.lab.com <http://emta.lab.com>";
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? filename = concat("config/mta-", hw_mac_short, ".cfg");
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? pool
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? #pool: MTA 172.16.52.1 172.16.53.253
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? range 172.16.52.1 172.16.53.253;
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? allow members of "MTA";
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
> ? ? ? ? }
>
> If I hardcode the host-name, then the DDNS works fine and gets created based
> on the mac (variable hw_mac_short) but I can't
> figure out how to return option 12 dynamically to clients requesting it.
>
> I'm testing this on ISC DHCP 4.4.1
>
> Is there a trick for that?
>
> Dave M.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20190904/0e834a34/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
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 131, Issue 3
******************************************
