I see a few different topics within this thread, each of which I've run across recently.
re: ISC dhcp server - "one lease per client": Perhaps a desirable idea - especially given the knob, but not recommended as doing so is outside the operation of the RFC. It's probably best as a last ditch effort only. I had been thinking of using it myself but now shying away from it. re: "dirty interfaces". Working with TAC on this issue currently as I have non-grouped interfaces being marked as dirty in 7.0.240. I'm planning on making a feature request to a) make marking dirty optional b) have a configurable threshold, c) have a configurable timeout period and d) logging when the condition is cleared. In a non dot1x environment, I'm seeing unknown devices , of which there are rightly many, trying to grab an address for which no entry exists. When 3 requests go unanswered, the (solo) interface is marked as dirty, which I don't understand. Now although marked, it does not seem to then avoid using the interface for the (hardcoded) 30 minutes. Appreciate any insight or knowing if others are seeing the same behavior. re: 7.4.100.0 RRM - working on a similar issue. I found a 3502's 2.4 radio set on low Txpower (6) under 7.4.100. I moved it a 7.0.240 controller within the same RF group and TxPower (seeing the same neighbors), now running at 2. I need to move it back to see if the problem tracks with the codeRev. 7.4.100 is in it's default TPCv1 mode. On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bryn Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Vikki**** > > ** ** > > We have used interface groups for a while with great success on our WiSM2. > We have a DHCP lease time of 20mins and we have an interface group that > consist of 20 x /15 private IP subnets so that we have the IP capacity to > cope.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks**** > > ** ** > > Bryn**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Bryn Jones**** > > ISS Network Development**** > > Rm 8.01e Computing Block**** > > EC Stoner Building**** > > University of Leeds**** > > UK**** > > LS2 9JT**** > > ** ** > > 0113 343 7055**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Vikki Cutrone > *Sent:* 15 February 2013 19:13 > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco Wireless Interface Groups**** > > ** ** > > Hello All, > > > I recently configured multiple /24 subnets into a wireless interface group > on my controllers, in an effort to cut down on multicast as well as > increase the IP address space. It seems to be working but DHCP addresses > are still being consumed at an alarming rate. Is anyone else using the > interface group feature? and if so is it working as expected? > > Thank you in advance! > > -- **** > > Vikki Cutrone**** > > Network Administrator**** > > Vassar College, Box 13**** > > 124 Raymond Ave**** > > Poughkeepsie, NY 12604-0013**** > > **** > > 845-437-7231**** > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. **** > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > -- Garry Peirce Network Architect Networkmaine, University of Maine System 1-207-561-3539 ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
