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: OMAPI Reservations and peer/failover (Simon Hobson)
2. Re: OMAPI Reservations and peer/failover (Bob Harold)
3. Re: OMAPI Reservations and peer/failover (Simon Hobson)
4. Re: OMAPI Reservations and peer/failover (Gregory Sloop)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 20:00:33 +0100
From: Simon Hobson <dh...@thehobsons.co.uk>
To: Greg Sloop <gr...@sloop.net>, Users of ISC DHCP
<dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: OMAPI Reservations and peer/failover
Message-ID: <f4dcd9f2-af0b-4a21-8903-6bf31ad35...@thehobsons.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Gregory Sloop <gr...@sloop.net> wrote:
> Given what I've been able to dig up on the subject of omapi and peers, I'm
> pretty sure you have to run against both, explicitly.
>
> But, additional complication arise!
>
> As noted, a fair bit of reading and searching seems to indicate you have to
> run the omshell commands against each server.
> However, this is particularly interesting (or perhaps troubling.)
> See: https://lists.isc.org/mailman/htdig/dhcp-users/2006-July/001102.html
>
> To save you the click, I'll quote...
> ---
> "You will have to rerun the statement on both peers.
> Take careful note of servers that lose their dhcpd.leases files, you'll have
> to be able to 0-to-60 them by replaying everything. "
> ---
>
> There was no expansion on this - and my understanding of it is somewhat
> ambiguous.
> Does this mean that if I have a peer that gets rebuild and the leases file is
> deleted, it won't get a copy of the "original" leases file from it's peer and
> that all the "reservation" flags will be lost and I will have to re-run all
> the omapi commands against the peer which lost the leases file?
>
> Assuming that's the correct interpretation...
> I suppose that it's best then, to copy the leases file from the "still-up'
> peer to the rebuilt peer. (I can't see a reason not to do this, but perhaps
> I'm missing something.)
That is indeed an odd statement.
I can completely understand it for a standalone peer - if it loses it's leases
file then all your OMAPI made changes will be gone.
But since the a major point of failover is for a server to be able to rebuild
itself after a disaster, I would have expected failover to take care of that. I
suggest you do a trial with a test server - my expectation is that if you bring
up the peer with no leases file, then it'll get everything from it's partner.
However, the warning still holds. Should your shared leases get corrupted or
lost, then you'd lose all your changes and need to re-play them. I'm not sure
under what circumstances both servers could lose/corrupt their leases, but I'm
sure there will be some.
I know that on a single server, if you remove some addresses from the defined
ranges, then any leases defined for them will be removed on server startup. So,
especially if you build a config and run it out to both servers at once, it's
possible to lose a bunch of leases that way.
Simon
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 15:08:31 -0400
From: Bob Harold <rharo...@umich.edu>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: OMAPI Reservations and peer/failover
Message-ID:
<CA+nkc8Deb=nXQ63VOyOWVC847MfqJsSoXj3wUyf=d8wy2if...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:00 PM Simon Hobson <dh...@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
> Gregory Sloop <gr...@sloop.net> wrote:
>
> > Given what I've been able to dig up on the subject of omapi and peers,
> I'm pretty sure you have to run against both, explicitly.
> >
> > But, additional complication arise!
> >
> > As noted, a fair bit of reading and searching seems to indicate you have
> to run the omshell commands against each server.
> > However, this is particularly interesting (or perhaps troubling.)
> > See:
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/htdig/dhcp-users/2006-July/001102.html
> >
> > To save you the click, I'll quote...
> > ---
> > "You will have to rerun the statement on both peers.
> > Take careful note of servers that lose their dhcpd.leases files, you'll
> have to be able to 0-to-60 them by replaying everything. "
> > ---
> >
> > There was no expansion on this - and my understanding of it is somewhat
> ambiguous.
> > Does this mean that if I have a peer that gets rebuild and the leases
> file is deleted, it won't get a copy of the "original" leases file from
> it's peer and that all the "reservation" flags will be lost and I will have
> to re-run all the omapi commands against the peer which lost the leases
> file?
> >
> > Assuming that's the correct interpretation...
> > I suppose that it's best then, to copy the leases file from the
> "still-up' peer to the rebuilt peer. (I can't see a reason not to do this,
> but perhaps I'm missing something.)
>
> That is indeed an odd statement.
> I can completely understand it for a standalone peer - if it loses it's
> leases file then all your OMAPI made changes will be gone.
>
> But since the a major point of failover is for a server to be able to
> rebuild itself after a disaster, I would have expected failover to take
> care of that. I suggest you do a trial with a test server - my expectation
> is that if you bring up the peer with no leases file, then it'll get
> everything from it's partner.
>
> However, the warning still holds. Should your shared leases get corrupted
> or lost, then you'd lose all your changes and need to re-play them. I'm not
> sure under what circumstances both servers could lose/corrupt their leases,
> but I'm sure there will be some.
> I know that on a single server, if you remove some addresses from the
> defined ranges, then any leases defined for them will be removed on server
> startup. So, especially if you build a config and run it out to both
> servers at once, it's possible to lose a bunch of leases that way.
>
> Simon
>
> If I understand what Gregory is asking, he is configuring 'host' entries
using OMAPI. The failover protocol will copy the 'lease' information, but
the 'host' entries would need to be set using OMAPI on each server, and set
again if the server loses them. Does that make sense?
--
Bob Harold
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20210528/288d2747/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 20:37:09 +0100
From: Simon Hobson <si...@thehobsons.co.uk>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: OMAPI Reservations and peer/failover
Message-ID: <6a72db67-22e9-4746-bb24-c50250593...@thehobsons.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Bob Harold <rharo...@umich.edu> wrote:
> If I understand what Gregory is asking, he is configuring 'host' entries
> using OMAPI. The failover protocol will copy the 'lease' information, but
> the 'host' entries would need to be set using OMAPI on each server, and set
> again if the server loses them. Does that make sense?
Ah, I'd missed that detail.
I wonder if reserved leases would be more suitable then ?
Simon
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 12:38:18 -0700
From: Gregory Sloop <gr...@sloop.net>
To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: OMAPI Reservations and peer/failover
Message-ID: <729896710.20210528123...@sloop.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Thanks you both for responding.
I'm setting a *reservation* flag on a lease in the leases file.
The list posting I reference is to a new lease def to the leases file.
Setting up a test, while a fair bit of work, might be interesting, if nothing
more definitive comes along.
I guess I could simply take one of the peers down, delete/rename the lease
file, and bring it back up and see how it's populated. (That would be easy, if
somewhat more risky. LOL)
Would there be any complications on copying the leases file from the
still-standing DHCP pair that you can think of?
(I _think_ they should be identical, provided there's not been lost
communication between the peers and they are out of sync for that reason, and
there's lost information in the down/dead pair. But that information is going
to be lost in any case (provided the dead peer truly can't be raised from the
dead), so any ripples from that loss won't be avoidable in any case.)
These servers, at least in the case here are in VM's which are pretty easily
and quickly restored from backups and such, so I'm considering third and fourth
order disasters - but sometimes things happen. I'd like to be ready when/if
they do. :)
Again, thanks for your thoughts!
-Greg
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:00 PM Simon Hobson <dh...@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
Gregory Sloop <gr...@sloop.net> wrote:
> Given what I've been able to dig up on the subject of omapi and peers, I'm
> pretty sure you have to run against both, explicitly.
>
> But, additional complication arise!
>
> As noted, a fair bit of reading and searching seems to indicate you have to
> run the omshell commands against each server.
> However, this is particularly interesting (or perhaps troubling.)
> See: https://lists.isc.org/mailman/htdig/dhcp-users/2006-July/001102.html
>
> To save you the click, I'll quote...
> ---
> "You will have to rerun the statement on both peers.
> Take careful note of servers that lose their dhcpd.leases files, you'll have
> to be able to 0-to-60 them by replaying everything. "
> ---
>
> There was no expansion on this - and my understanding of it is somewhat
> ambiguous.
> Does this mean that if I have a peer that gets rebuild and the leases file is
> deleted, it won't get a copy of the "original" leases file from it's peer and
> that all the "reservation" flags will be lost and I will have to re-run all
> the omapi commands against the peer which lost the leases file?
>
> Assuming that's the correct interpretation...
> I suppose that it's best then, to copy the leases file from the "still-up'
> peer to the rebuilt peer. (I can't see a reason not to do this, but perhaps
> I'm missing something.)
That is indeed an odd statement.
I can completely understand it for a standalone peer - if it loses it's leases
file then all your OMAPI made changes will be gone.
But since the a major point of failover is for a server to be able to rebuild
itself after a disaster, I would have expected failover to take care of that. I
suggest you do a trial with a test server - my expectation is that if you bring
up the peer with no leases file, then it'll get everything from it's partner.
However, the warning still holds. Should your shared leases get corrupted or
lost, then you'd lose all your changes and need to re-play them. I'm not sure
under what circumstances both servers could lose/corrupt their leases, but I'm
sure there will be some.
I know that on a single server, if you remove some addresses from the defined
ranges, then any leases defined for them will be removed on server startup. So,
especially if you build a config and run it out to both servers at once, it's
possible to lose a bunch of leases that way.
Simon
If I understand what Gregory is asking, he is configuring 'host' entries using
OMAPI. The failover protocol will copy the 'lease' information, but the 'host'
entries would need to be set using OMAPI on each server, and set again if the
server loses them. Does that make sense?
--
Bob Harold
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20210528/923aa937/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
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 151, Issue 12
*******************************************
