Jake,
Thank you very much for your input, highly valuable as always.
So you just disabled the DHCP server "pfdhcplistener" service altogether?
The reasons I run DHCP on the switch is that the switch does it - and why
not? The logic here is as follows - if my switch is down then the devices
it serves are naturally going down too. However, the PF server is a
different device. If it goes down there is no need for it to take down the
DHCP capability for devices already plugged into this switch and assigned
their proper VLAN. Does that make sense?
Respectfully,
Boris.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Sallee, Jake <[email protected]> wrote:
> You can put the DHCP helper directive in the switch just don't run DHCP on
> the PF server (this is exaclty what we do).
>
> The switch should still serve up your DHCP and the PF server will be happy
> that it is seeing the DHCP traffic.
>
> Also; running DHCP on the actual switch has always struck me as a strange
> idea. Could you explain why you decided to do it that way?
>
> Jake Sallee
> Godfather of Bandwidth
> System Engineer
> University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
> WWW.UMHB.EDU
>
> 900 College St.
> Belton, Texas
> 76513
>
> Fone: 254-295-4658
> Phax: 254-295-4221
> ________________________________
> From: Boris Epstein [[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:38 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [PacketFence-users] PF and independent DHCP
>
> Hello listmates,
>
> I am using PF in a VLAN-based environment. The VLAN's aremanaged by
> independent switches, So is DHCP assignment on these VLAN's.
>
> It all works fine with one exception: the captive portal for machines on
> my VLAN's generates the following error message when I try to connect to it:
>
> "Sorry!
>
> Your computer was not found in the PacketFence database. Please reboot to
> solve this issue."
>
> This discussion from a few years back:
>
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/packetfence/mailman/packetfence-users/thread/[email protected]/
>
> seems to suggest that the DHCP info (MAC, IP address, etc.) needs to be
> communicated back to the PF server. One suggested approach is using
> ip-helpers. My concern is that this may make me dependent on my PF server
> for DHCP as my Cisco switches will be tied to it and unable to perform as
> independent DHCP servers. Does anybody know if that is the case?
>
> In short, I need to have a situation where routine IP infrastructure
> functions (routing, DHCP IP address assignment, etc.) occur regardless of
> the status of the PF server - even if it is down. Any advice on how to do
> that and at the same time have a functional PF server with accessible
> captive portal will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Boris.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> PacketFence-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
