no flame... but maybe you are over simplifying the process a bit. :) the client will solicit all dhcp servers (DHCPDISCOVER), and will then receive responses (DHCPOFFER) from all dhcp servers. perhaps all the offers are stored in temp variables. after reviewing all offers the client has the option to respond (DHCPREQUEST) to one and only one of the offers. the rest of the servers that sent offers are left hanging. if the chosen server approves the request it'll respond (DHCPACK) to say ok and finish the dhcp session. When the client receives the ok, then it can fill the "real" variables with ip addr/ network info, etc.
But of course I'm not disputing that Microsoft programmers are extremely dumb... :). if they follow the standard, should be little room for conflict, but we know how MS loves to "extend and embrace." -ray On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Alvaro Zuniga wrote: > Basically what I was saying is that the programmer would have to be extremely > dumb in order to make software that would create a conflict. In which ever > possible scenario, once an algorithm fills its variable with a value which > seems good enough it stops, or should stop at this point. Even if it > continued searching for a different DHCP server ( fail over ), due to the > nature of the protocol, the new value retrieved from the second DHCP server > would replace the the contents of the variable ( which was possibly undefined > ). I doubt that anyone would set up a program using two variables to obtain > an IP address( maybe microsoft with the purpose of bloating XP ). If for some > weird reason two addresses would be retrieved from the DHCP servers, the > first DCHP server would be short one IP address from its pool of IPs which > should not be a problem. > > This is purely theoretical, I do even setup DHCP usually becuase I like to do > things the hard way. I do realize the importance of DHCP for large networks. > :-) > > please be gentle when you flame this posting, I can already feel it > > Alvaro Zuniga > > On Friday 07 March 2003 08:06 am, Scott Harney wrote: > > Alvaro Zuniga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I do not know to much about this but if your are using different address > > > pools like you have stated this is how is see it: > > > > > > In order to have a conflict the DHCP discovery algorithm would have to > > > find a second instance of the DHCP server after finding the first one :-) > > > Sounds like a Microsoftian Alnorythm. > > > > It's not as uncommon as you might think. I set up failover DHCP > > servers when I was employed at Charter using Cisco's CNR. It's also > > possible to do this with ISC dhcpd. You can also have two machines > > handing out different pools. The main thing is each machine needs to > > be aware of the other's pools and leases. As long as the dhcp client > > gets a valid lease, it doesn't know or care about the multiple DHCP > > servers on the subnet. > > > > Regarding the original poster's issues, I would turn off one of the > > DHCP servers in his subnet. There's really no reason to have two > > running in a small office environment and it will make problem > > resolution really hard for him to diagnose. > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://oxygen.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ray DeJean http://www.r-a-y.org Systems Engineer Southeastern Louisiana University IBM Certified Specialist AIX Administration, AIX Support =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
