Thanks Simon. Appreciate the heads-up on the off-topic parts of my post.

I see from the auth.log entries that dhcp_release is being called as:

    dhcp_release tapc5399cce-70 132.16.0.13 fa:16:3e:8e:83:97

To me that looks good, and lines up with the man page for dhcp_release.
The interface "tapc5399cce-70" is the same as in the dnsmasq-dhcp log
entries for the request and offer, and also matches the output of:

    ip netns exec qdhcp-34705fcf-4f9c-48eb-b0bc-ac5091e181c8 ip a 

I will try to reproduce again and watch the tcpdump for the release
packet. 

Thanks,
GP 

On 2017-05-17 14:39, Simon Kelley wrote:

> Ah, didn't read this before my previous reply.
> 
> dhcp_release is getting called, but dnsmasq is not getting the packet
> (dhcp_release works by faking up a DHCP message as if it's coming from
> the DHCP client, which tells the server to release the lease.)
> 
> If you can't see the packet in your packet dump, then that's significant.
> 
> Note that dhcp_release needs an "interface" parameter. That has to be
> correct.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Simon.
> 
> On 17/05/17 19:12, Graeme Peterson wrote: I found the following entry in 
> /var/log/auth.log which shows neutron as
> root (sudo) calling dhcp_release on IP: 132.16.0.13, MAC: 
> fa:16:3e:8e:83:97 two minutes after the DHCPACK and two minutes before
> the dnsmasq-dhcp log failure saying: "not using configured address
> 132.16.0.13 because it is leased to fa:16:3e:8e:83:97". Looks to me like
> Openstack is calling dhcp_release correctly. The dnsmask log is in a
> folder named "34705fcf-4f9c-48eb-b0bc-ac5091e181c8", same as the arg to
> ip netns exec without the "qdhcp-" prefix. So far it looks like a
> dhcp_release/dnsmasq issue to my untrained eye. I have been able to work
> around it somewhat by setting the max lease time to 30 seconds, although
> that seems to be introducing other issues, more investigation required
> there.
> 
> ./auth.log:May 16 16:55:21 my-ucs-69 sudo:  neutron : TTY=unknown ;
> PWD=/var/lib/neutron ; USER=root ; COMMAND=/usr/bin/neutron-rootwrap
> /etc/neutron/rootwrap.conf ip netns exec
> qdhcp-34705fcf-4f9c-48eb-b0bc-ac5091e181c8 dhcp_release tapc5399cce-70
> 132.16.0.13 fa:16:3e:8e:83:97
> 
> Thanks again,
> Graeme
> 
> On 2017-05-17 12:24, Graeme Peterson wrote:
> 
> Hi all.
> 
> Sorry if this issue has been discussed and resolved, I am new to the
> list. I tried to find it in the list, and came across this reference
> to the issue from Jan 2016:
> 
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2016q1/010273.html
> 
> What I am seeing is with OpenStack Newton on Ubuntu 16.10
> (4.8.0-49-generic), with force_dhcp_release=True in
> /etc/nova/nova.conf, using tcpdump on the netns for the relevant
> Openstack network, I see dnsmasq receives the dhcp request, issues an
> IP, and that IP should be released (Openstack should be calling
> dhcp_release, I need to figure out how to verify that it is or is not
> happening, however force_dhcp_release=True is explicitly set in
> /etc/nova/nova.conf) , but it seems like the dhcp entry isn't being
> entirely released. The odd thing is that when a new VM wants an IP,
> tcpdump shows the request coming in for an address, but no reply, and
> OpenStack thinks it got an IP - the same one that used to belong to
> the recently terminated VM - but there is no dhcp offer in the
> tcpdump, and the dnsmasq log shows:
> 
> May 16 16:53:15 dnsmasq-dhcp[40394]: 3306068020
> DHCPREQUEST(tapc5399cce-70) 132.16.0.13 fa:16:3e:8e:83:97
> May 16 16:53:15 dnsmasq-dhcp[40394]: 3306068020 tags: tag0, known,
> tapc5399cce-70
> May 16 16:53:15 dnsmasq-dhcp[40394]: 3306068020
> DHCPACK(tapc5399cce-70) 132.16.0.13 fa:16:3e:8e:83:97 host-132-16-0-13
> ...
> ...
> ...
> May 16 16:57:12 dnsmasq-dhcp[40394]: 461988430 available DHCP subnet:
> 132.16.0.0/255.255.0.0
> May 16 16:57:12 dnsmasq-dhcp[40394]: not using configured address
> 132.16.0.13 because it is leased to fa:16:3e:8e:83:97
> May 16 16:57:12 dnsmasq-dhcp[40394]: 461988430
> DHCPDISCOVER(tapc5399cce-70) 192.168.0.51 fa:16:3e:31:de:d3 no address
> available
> 
> I don't see a log entry for a release of 132.16.0.13, not sure if
> there should be one.
> 
> Is this a known and hopefully fixed issue? Can I provide further info
> to help investigate it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Graeme
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> <mailto:Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk>
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

Reply via email to