Upgrade from 3.0.2 to 3.0.4 and some strange changes
Hall J D (ISeLS)
jdhall at glam.ac.uk
Mon Oct 16 16:01:32 UTC 2006
Thanks for clearing this up,
From: dhcp-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:dhcp-users-bounce at isc.org] On
Behalf Of David W. Hankins
Sent: 16 October 2006 16:13
To: dhcp-users at isc.org
Subject: Re: Upgrade from 3.0.2 to 3.0.4 and some strange changes
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:39:42PM +0100, Hall J D (ISeLS) wrote:
> I appreciate it's just cosmetic, but couldn't this new error message
> It sure confused me! After all how can both the servers be saying "the
> other guy has
> all the free leases"
It has been confusing since the dawn of time ("no free leases" does
not mean no leases are free). I'd love to make it not confusing.
But that would neccessitate an architectural change, which is not
something we can do in maintenance releases, and did not have the
time to fit into the 3.1.x feature release.
It remains on our wish list.
> Just for info it looks like the partner state date and time on both
> servers is the
> time the lease file was created. After this initial time gets recorded
> it's not
> Updated again.
Yeah. It's pretty obvious that this time is never being set (it
is very easy to grep -r for 'partner\.stos') in normal failover
protocol wire operations.
But it's equally obvious that it's never examined except to write
to the lease database.
In my memory of reading through the failover draft, there's also
no situation where the peer's STOS is taken into account.
ISC Training! October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DDNS & DHCP. Email training at isc.org.
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
More information about the dhcp-users