On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 14:07 +0100, Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote: > >> See earlier messages in this thread. I (a) found a theoretical issue > >> with the protocol, and (b) demonstrated it in a live system. > > > > I missed it. What was it again? > > When we tried it back in 2007 with an Active/Active configuration, the > two instances of ISC DHCPD started handing out duplicate leases > completely arbitrarily. We scrapped the second instance and went > down to a single one. Haven't tried it again since.
Thanks - but that's not a theoretical problem (necessarily). I'm interested in the protocol itself; Alan has been talking about an error in the protocol which would lead to failure *even if the protocol were implemented correctly*. What does "Active/Active" mean? Presumably not the same as "primary/primary", which would be a configuration error... Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer ([email protected]) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
