Hey Simon, In my previous email, "Healthy Node" and "Failed Node" are two entirely different servers, completely independent in each other (which explains why they have different IP addresses).
Sorry - I should have made that clearer! Just wanted to illustrate the difference in output between a known working server and a failed server. Your thought process did spark my interest in DHCP logs; however, the IP address has been consistent throughout the issues. Thanks, Zach On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Simon Kelley <si...@thekelleys.org.uk> wrote: > On 05/02/18 15:43, Zi Dvbelju wrote: > > > Healthy Node (netstat) > > ``` > > *udp 0 0 127.0.0.1:53 <http://127.0.0.1:53> > > 0.0.0.0:* 1400/dnsmasq* > > *udp 0 0 10.3.1.79:53 <http://10.3.1.79:53> > > 0.0.0.0:* 1400/dnsmasq* > > *udp 0 0 172.17.0.1:53 <http://172.17.0.1:53> > > 0.0.0.0:* 1400/dnsmasq* > > > /var/log/syslog.7:2018-02-05T06:05:31.066648+00:00 dnsmasq: failed > > to create listening socket for 172.17.0.1 <http://172.17.0.1>: Address > > already in use > > /var/log/syslog.7:2018-02-05T06:05:31.066813+00:00 dnsmasq: failed > > to create listening socket for 10.3.4.228 <http://10.3.4.228>: Address > > already in use > > /var/log/syslog.7:2018-02-05T06:05:31.066917+00:00 dnsmasq: failed > > to create listening socket for 127.0.0.1 <http://127.0.0.1>: Address > > already in use > > ``` > > > > Further to my previous question, I can see that the dnsmasq _was_ > listening in 127.0.0.1, 172.17.0.1 and 10.3.1.79, and then it attempts > to listen on 127.0.0.1, 172.17.0.1 and 10.3.4.228, so that implies a > network configuration change, with something changing 10.3.1.79 -> > 10.3.4.228. Any idea what that's about? If you can find what causes that > change, we might, at very least, have a way to reproduce this at will. > > > > Cheers, > > Simon. > >
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasqemail@example.com http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss