Re: [dhcpd] BOOTP from dynamic client and no dynamic leases
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi-- > > On Aug 8, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Andrew Falanga wrote: >> >> >> not authoritative; > > If you are in charge of the subnet range that you are using, then you should > be setting yours to authoritative. If there is already a DHCP server > running as authoritative for the local subnet, you should configure your > static IPs on it, rather than trying to set up a second one. You could > probably gain more information by running: > I just read through my original post for this message here and should have made it more clear that this list wasn't among the inadequate helps I was referencing. I cannot tell you the number of Google searches I've done in looking for this. I am not authoritative on this subnet. Originally, I had the statement as authoritative but thought this might be my problem (unfortunately it wasn't). The organization I work for is sufficiently large enough that getting requests handled for the authoritative serves nearly takes an act of Congress. When our team ramps up, we change out hardware quite frequently and this (asking for changes made to the authoritative servers) isn't feasible for us to meet demand. So, this solution was put in place. Our old bootp server worked just fine, but is now having problems (it runs for about a day and then crashes). > tcpdump -s 0 -vv port bootps > > ...and look at whether the MAC addrs match what you think they should be in > the request, and whether your server or another is replying with DHCPNAK. > There is fine documentation and even a mailing list for the ISC DHCPD > available here and at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/dhcp/authoritative.php > http://www.isc.org/sw/dhcp/dhcpv3-README.php#support > thank you for these two links. I hadn't yet found them from all the searches I'd done thus far. Also, though I should have thought of it myself, thanks for the pointer on using tcpdump. I'll give that a try. Andy -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [dhcpd] BOOTP from dynamic client and no dynamic leases
Hi-- On Aug 8, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Andrew Falanga wrote: Hi, If I had hair I'd be pulling it out now. I cannot find adequate help anywhere as yet for this issue. I've installed the ISC dhcpd program from ports and am struggling to get it setup properly. As I mentioned in my other e-mail, I cannot share the contents of my configuration file. I'm sorry, I really wished I could. What I have is this (censored for host names and IP addresses): not authoritative; If you are in charge of the subnet range that you are using, then you should be setting yours to authoritative. If there is already a DHCP server running as authoritative for the local subnet, you should configure your static IPs on it, rather than trying to set up a second one. You could probably gain more information by running: tcpdump -s 0 -vv port bootps ...and look at whether the MAC addrs match what you think they should be in the request, and whether your server or another is replying with DHCPNAK. There is fine documentation and even a mailing list for the ISC DHCPD available here and at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/dhcp/authoritative.php http://www.isc.org/sw/dhcp/dhcpv3-README.php#support Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[dhcpd] BOOTP from dynamic client and no dynamic leases
Hi,
If I had hair I'd be pulling it out now. I cannot find adequate help
anywhere as yet for this issue. I've installed the ISC dhcpd program
from ports and am struggling to get it setup properly. As I mentioned
in my other e-mail, I cannot share the contents of my configuration
file. I'm sorry, I really wished I could. What I have is this
(censored for host names and IP addresses):
not authoritative;
ddns-update-style none;
deny unknown-clients;
allow bootp;
use-host-decl-names on;
subnet 192.168.24.0 netmask 255.255.248.0 {
# this server will only host bootp, thus the range is left out
#leases
default-lease-time 6000;
max-lease-time 6000;
option subnet-mask 255.255.248.0;
option broadcast-address 192.168..31.255;
option routers 192.168.24.1;
option domain-name-servers 192.168.0.51;
option domain-name "internal.domain";
}
host host1 {
option host-name "host1";
hardware ethernet 00:01:a2:4a:cc:af;
fixed-address 192.168.27.0;
}
That's all of the globals in use by this server and a single host
entry (there are 44 hosts using the range 192.168.27.0-192.168.27.43).
I do not know what is causing my problem. The dhcpd server starts so
I know there are no syntactic problems with my configuration file, but
it's not answering requests for IP addresses. When I start the
server, dhcpd -d, I get many lines with the test, "BOOTP from dynamic
client and no dynamic leases." Also, because of how things are
configured for the subnet I'm on, I cannot allow this server to
respond to other DHCP requests. It can only service the small range
of 44 that I've been allocated.
The clients use bootp for this and although they are not booting
anything from this server, or any other, bootp is used. Whether or
not this is a good, or proper use, of bootp I know not. I didn't set
it up, but it is what I have to use. Can anyone here offer me any
ideas about what the problem might be?
>From looking through the dhcpd.conf file I've found a configuration
option for pool clauses that's something like this:
lease limit N;
but I don't think this is what I'm looking for. First off, it seems
to only apply to pools and I'm not using any pools. Secondly, it
would only help if the assumption is correct that without this
statement the server defaults to a lease limit of 0. This, I don't
believe, is the case from what I've read in this man page.
Any help is greatly appreciated thanks,
Andy
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
