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: strange behavior of shared network (Milan Kovac)
2. Re: eth0: not responding (recovering) (Surya Teja)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 15:35:39 +0200
From: Milan Kovac <kova...@gmail.com>
To: dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: strange behavior of shared network
Message-ID: <e4ecc215-3294-feea-4405-0d7d9ccff...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Yes, I know that ranges can`t overlap.
I have other subnets for static and dynamic cause static are public ip
addresses.
In any case it`s OK now.
Thanks again
Milan
D?a 9. 10. 2019 o 13:54 Simon Hobson nap?sal(a):
> Milan Kovac <kova...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> so the problem was:
>>
>> In subnet which is only for static clients, can`t be defined range.
> You can have static and dynamic in one subnet - but the addresses cannot
> overlap.
>
>> Now everything works correctly, but strange is, that? it worked
>> correctly 2 years, and when I added the last 11th subnet, problem was
>> there.
> It can happen.
> Did any other subnets have the same overlap between statuc & dynamic clients
> ? If not, then you wouldn't have triggered the issue before.
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 23:02:24 +0530
From: Surya Teja <suryateja...@gmail.com>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: eth0: not responding (recovering)
Message-ID:
<ca+0ac3za+trfospad3-uo+dcxygfq4crwbbmgg5c0jmcuyp...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I am facing weird situation with fail over setup on my lab environment. I
am facing issue when the failover dhcp appliance is added to my existing
server.
For the first time when i add failover to primary appliance, On primary
appliance lease file i see the partner state as unknown and in the failover
the messages are printing not responding recovery, so i shutdown the
failover appliance and removed the failover config section from primary and
restarted primary then it was working fine.
As a trial of second attempt i increased mclt value to 3600 and added the
failover section back to primary config and bring up the failover server
now.
The environment became most problematic none of the servers are granting
leases to devices On the primary lease file it says
my state partner-down
peer state recovery
Why do we get these recovery,partner down, unknown status when i add the
failover to my environment?
Or do we have any best practice steps how to add failover to existing
server without causing any outages?
Any help would be appreciated
Thanks
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019, 21:04 Surya Teja, <suryateja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bill Thanks for your reply,
> Yes I see traffic on the peer ports which i mentioned in the fail over
> section of my configuration file.
> My mclt value is 1800(30 min).
> I am seeing these issues on the failover server and some times I see the
> logs saying peer hold all free leases, but that scope is not completely
> full with active entries in the dhcpd.lease file of that specified server
>
> And one more strange thing I observerd in the lease file. In the file I
> have statements like my status and peer status. In that peer status is
> saying *unknown*
> When will this happen? In general scenario it should be normal that is
> what i got from internet, but the state is not getting updated in the lease
> file.
>
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, 21:16 Bill Shirley, <b...@c3po.polymerindustries.biz>
> wrote:
>
>> Assuming you're referring to DHCP failover, is there any traffic flow on
>> the
>> port and peer port in the failover stanza?
>>
>> What is your value for mclt?
>>
>> Which server, primary or secondary, is giving the recovering message?
>>
>> Bill
>> On 10/5/2019 9:33 AM, Surya Teja wrote:
>>
>> Hi I have an issue in the lease flow with isc dhcp service. In the logs
>> it is printing * eth0: not responding (recovering) *
>> My local is set up with active-active mode(splt value as 50-50%) and
>> because of some reason one of the appliance went down for some duration. I
>> observed this and i bring it up, and duration of down is nearly 15hr.
>> After i bring it up. I am seeing the logs saying not responding
>> (recovering). Its been more than two hours still I am getting the same
>> logs
>> Does any one have any idea about this scenario and how to get the
>> environment stable
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcp-users mailing
>> listdhcp-us...@lists.isc.orghttps://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20191009/427782e0/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
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 132, Issue 8
******************************************
