On Jan 28, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Carl Baldwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Salvatore Orlando <[email protected]> > wrote: >> The patch Kevin points out increased the lease to 24 hours (which I agree is >> as arbitrary as 2 minutes, 8 minutes, or 1 century) because it introduced >> use of DHCPRELEASE message in the agent, which is supported by dnsmasq (to >> the best of my knowledge) and is functionally similar to FORCERENEW. > > My understanding was that the dhcp release mechanism in dnsmasq does > not actually unicast a FORCERENEW message to the client. Does it? I > thought it just released dnsmasq's record of the lease. If I'm right, > this is a huge difference. It is a big pain knowing that there are > many clients out there who may not renew their leases to get updated > dhcp options for hours and hours. I don't think there is a reliable > way for the server to force renew to the client, is there? Do clients > support the FORCERENEW unicast message? If you are using the dhcp-release script (that we got included in ubuntu years ago for nova-network), it sends a release packet on behalf of the client so that dnsmasq can update its leases table, but it doesn’t send any message to the client to tell it to update. Vish > > Carl > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
