Am Montag, den 11.01.2010, 17:02 -0200 schrieb José Queiroz: > I understand that, if the address pool is exausted, the DHCP server > should respond immediatelly with a DHCPNACK, and not start a ping > sweep to find free addresses. > from dhcpd.conf (http://www.daemon-systems.org/man/dhcpd.conf.5.html):
"... If no addresses are found that can be assigned to the client, no response is sent to the client." DHCPNACK only happens when there is an active deny condition for the specific client to use a specific IP. I was wrong about the ping though. I thought the server would do this periodically in "crowded" situations. However, it is only true for abandoned ip addresses: "The DHCP server checks IP addresses to see if they are in use before allocating them to clients. It does this by sending an ICMP Echo request message to the IP address being allocated. ..." (read on to get the detailled process.) There surely is some issue with the DHCP server. Badly configured network, too much load on the DHCP server computer through other processes and daemons, badly configured failover DHCP servers etc. etc. could be dozen causes. I know, it is extremly tricky to resolve network problems once you have them ;) But, reducing the lease time might as well help, at least admins might give it a try for a few days. Although, exhausted address pool should have showed up in the logs which the admins most probably checked already. > The only way I can think of to implement this division without > separating "known" and "unknown" clients in independent broadcast > domains (by means of physical separated switches, or even VLANs), is > pre-registering the known clients in dhcp configuration. I'm afraid, yes. VLANs however, are one option which should really be considered, especially for security reasons. Chances are there already is a VLAN infrastructure or even multiple physically separate networks, because having critical research and accounting PCs on the same net with freely accessible lan ports or wlan access points is not a very wise thing to do, obviously. Well, back to your questions. Surely it is now bug in nm. However it still is frustrating to have all Windows and Macs connect when linux won't. That should not happen. Even when it is the other ends fault. So, I hope the response mailed earlier by John Mahoney was of some help ;) Regards, Sven _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
