Failover without shared-network?

Ken Roberts ken at
Wed Jul 19 19:14:37 UTC 2006

On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 13:18, David W. Hankins wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:42:46PM -0500, Ken Roberts wrote:
> > The error message I got was in /var/log/messages.  When I started the
> > server it complained that my failover peer could not be defined outside
> > of a shared-network, or something similar.  Then the server would exit. 
> I'm guessing you had 'failover peer "foo";' configured inside something
> that was not a pool {} clause (eg a subnet {} or host {} or the root
> scope or something).
> Maybe too many }'s on the line above or something of that nature.
> I think 'failover peer "foo";' was intended to be allowed inside a
> shared-network declaration (to apply to all subnets and pools),
> but that's not the general practice of config (in fact, this may
> more likely be an artefact of early development that never got
> removed).

Maybe that's it.  I know I tried a global-context failover peer
declaration at one point.

Thanks a bunch.  I now think I can get there from here, if I can figure
out how to start the server in partner-down state at first.

More information about the dhcp-users mailing list