On 12/27/11 22:04, Scott Ferguson wrote:
It sounds like you are running two DHCP servers - in which case you
have four options (none of which involve preseeding).
If you have multiple DHCP servers the problem is *easily* fixed - please
tell me the make and model of the primary
Hi
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 04:26:20AM -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
On 12/27/11 22:04, Scott Ferguson wrote:
It sounds like you are running two DHCP servers - in which case you
have four options (none of which involve preseeding).
If you have multiple DHCP servers the problem is *easily*
A limited amount of redundancy is good. If one goes down, the network
can still limp along.
Anyway, that's the theory.
Rick
On Jan 5, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
I'm not the OP, but I do have this problem. When I try to do an
install (wheezy) on a network with two DHCP
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 12:57 -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
A limited amount of redundancy is good. If one goes down, the network
can still limp along.
Anyway, that's the theory.
Rick
On Jan 5, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
I'm not the OP, but I do have this problem. When I try
On 06/01/12 06:57, Rick Thomas wrote:
A limited amount of redundancy is good. If one goes down, the network
can still limp along.
Anyway, that's the theory.
My understanding is that you need to have some sort of failover setup -
so the secondary dhcp server only starts working
On Jan 5, 2012, at 1:40 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 12:57 -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
A limited amount of redundancy is good. If one goes down, the
network
can still limp along.
Anyway, that's the theory.
Rick
On Jan 5, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
I'm
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:02:45 +1300, Richard wrote in message
4f060ff5.9050...@walnut.gen.nz:
On 06/01/12 06:57, Rick Thomas wrote:
A limited amount of redundancy is good. If one goes down, the
network can still limp along.
Anyway, that's the theory.
My understanding is that you
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 15:55 -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Jan 5, 2012, at 1:40 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 12:57 -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
A limited amount of redundancy is good. If one goes down, the
network
can still limp along.
Anyway, that's the
John A. Sullivan III wrote:
The problem is when they are administering addresses in the same range.
I've not configured DHCP for a long time so maybe this is common now and
the problems have all been resolved
I believe the problem is sufficiently resolved now. Time has past and
this is
On 05/01/12 20:26, Rick Thomas wrote:
On 12/27/11 22:04, Scott Ferguson wrote:
It sounds like you are running two DHCP servers - in which case you
have four options (none of which involve preseeding).
If you have multiple DHCP servers the problem is *easily* fixed - please
tell me the make
On 01/05/12 16:30, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 15:55 -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Jan 5, 2012, at 1:40 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 12:57 -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
A limited amount of redundancy is good. If one goes down, the
network
can still
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:04 -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
On 01/05/12 16:30, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
snip Hmm . . . could you install with a manual IP address and then simply
change the configuration once the installation is done? - John
Of course. And that's exactly what I usually wind up
John A. Sullivan III wrote:
Rick Thomas wrote:
Really, I'm mostly interested in figuring out what's going on and
probing to help get it fixed.
snip
That makes sense. In that case, I would suggest putting a protocol
analyzer on the line and see what is happening on the wire - John
I
On 01/05/12 20:02, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 05/01/12 20:26, Rick Thomas wrote:
On 12/27/11 22:04, Scott Ferguson wrote:
It sounds like you are running two DHCP servers - in which case you
have four options (none of which involve preseeding).
If you have multiple DHCP servers the problem is
14 matches
Mail list logo
