On 9/6/09 14:20, Karl Auer wrote:
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...
With a pair of servers running Active/Active means that both servers
participate at the same time. In ISC terms this would be 'load sharing'.
Active/Passive generally refers to some kind of redundancy arrangement.
Regards,
Arran
--
Arran Cudbard-Bell ([email protected]),
Authentication, Authorisation and Accounting Officer,
Infrastructure Services (IT Services),
E1-1-08, Engineering 1, University Of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QT
DDI+FAX: +44 1273 873900 | INT: 3900
GPG: 86FF A285 1AA1 EE40 D228 7C2E 71A9 25BB 1E68 54A2
-
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
