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: duplicate ip address assigned (Alan Batie)
2. Re: duplicate ip address assigned (Simon Hobson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:46:25 -0700
From: Alan Batie <a...@peak.org>
To: dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: duplicate ip address assigned
Message-ID: <7d2b4361-aec9-d32c-3c5e-96b00feef...@peak.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
On 4/23/21 12:57 PM, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Alan Batie <a...@peak.org> wrote:
> Is 1.1.1.200 part of the dynamic pool in the config ? I think it is because
> that's exactly what the warning in the log is telling you.
> What I think has happened is that you've configured the server to allocate
> 1.1.1.200 to one device via a host statement with fixed-address, AND also
> allowed it to be dynamically allocated to another device via the dynamic
> allocation mechanism. The ISC server does **NOT** automatically fix this
> configuration error for you - but the above warning was added some years ago
> to alert people to the issue given that many were being caught out by it.
I tried making the pool smaller in case that was an issue and it
complained about the static reservation not being in a subnet...
relevant excerpt from config:
subnet 1.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
option routers 1.1.1.1;
pool {
range 1.1.1.2 1.1.1.250;
}
}
host StaticCustomer {
hardware ethernet 00:11:22:33:44:55;
fixed-address 1.1.1.200;
}
host DyanmicCustomer {
# keeps stealing address
hardware ethernet 66:66:66:66:66:66;
fixed-address 1.1.1.201;
}
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 10:25:35 +0100
From: Simon Hobson <dh...@thehobsons.co.uk>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: duplicate ip address assigned
Message-ID: <cabd195c-2abf-44a7-86a3-bf8b15c33...@thehobsons.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Alan Batie <a...@peak.org> wrote:
> On 4/23/21 12:57 PM, Simon Hobson wrote:
>> Alan Batie <a...@peak.org> wrote:
>
>> Is 1.1.1.200 part of the dynamic pool in the config ? I think it is because
>> that's exactly what the warning in the log is telling you.
>> What I think has happened is that you've configured the server to allocate
>> 1.1.1.200 to one device via a host statement with fixed-address, AND also
>> allowed it to be dynamically allocated to another device via the dynamic
>> allocation mechanism. The ISC server does **NOT** automatically fix this
>> configuration error for you - but the above warning was added some years ago
>> to alert people to the issue given that many were being caught out by it.
>
> I tried making the pool smaller in case that was an issue and it complained
> about the static reservation not being in a subnet...
>
> relevant excerpt from config:
>
> subnet 1.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
> option routers 1.1.1.1;
>
> pool {
> range 1.1.1.2 1.1.1.250;
> }
> }
>
> host StaticCustomer {
> hardware ethernet 00:11:22:33:44:55;
> fixed-address 1.1.1.200;
> }
>
> host DyanmicCustomer {
> # keeps stealing address
> hardware ethernet 66:66:66:66:66:66;
> fixed-address 1.1.1.201;
> }
Post the log entry and config that caused it.
The snippet above illustrates your problem. Both 1.1.1.200 and 1.1.1.201 are
within the dynamic pool and so **CAN** be given to any other client at any
time. So sooner or later you'll see the same problem surface again next time
client churn brings those addresses into use. The way to fix it is like this :
subnet 1.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
option routers 1.1.1.1;
pool {
range 1.1.1.2 1.1.1.199;
range 1.1.1.122 1.1.1.250;
}
}
That will make it so that 200 and 201 cannot be given to a dynamic client, so
the problem will disappear.
As I mentioned, it's an issue that appeared so often on this list that the code
was updated to detect and warn about it. In part I think that was due to it
being different to the "MS way of doing things" that many people had previously
been used to.
An alternative way to manage this is with reserved allocations. If you add
"reserved;" to a lease for 1.1.1.200 (and remove the host statement) then it
will be reserved for that device - but is otherwise like any other dynamic
lease (you do NOT exclude it from the dynamic range). But because hosts with
fixed-addresses don't get lease entries, you may have to create a skeleton
lease first.
I believe you can do this via OMSHELL, but I;ve not used that myself. I;ve only
done it by stopping the server and editing the leases file manually.
Two ways of doing things, both have pros and cons.
Host statements with fixed-address are clear to see in the config file but
don't follow the normal lease lifecycle - especially a problem with dynamic DNS.
Reserved leases follow the normal lease lifecycle, including dynamic DNS
updates, but the config is hidden in the leases file. Having something that
will parse the leases file would quickly show you them.
Simon
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions.
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
dhcp-users mailing list
dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
------------------------------
End of dhcp-users Digest, Vol 150, Issue 7
******************************************
