Failover: sending SHUTDOWN to peer

[Guus Houtzager]

Hi,

Sorry if this has already been asked, but I searched the archives and
couldn't find it.
I've got a pair of 3.0.5 DHCP servers running in failover config. Works
just fine. I know about communications-interrupted and omapi to manually
get a peer in partner-down mode.
However, I thought that if you shutdown a peer "the right way", it's
supposed to send a SHUTDOWN message to its peer so that peer can go in
partner-down mode as it knows for sure the peer is down. I found this in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-failover-07#section-9.12:

9.12. SHUTDOWN state

   This state exists to allow one server to inform another that it will
   be out of service for what is predicted to be a relatively long time,
   and to allow the other server to transition immediately to PARTNER-
   DOWN state, and take over completely for the server going down.
   A server which is aware that it is shutting down SHOULD send a STATE
   message with the server-state field containing SHUTDOWN.

   While a server may or may not transition internally into SHUTDOWN
   state, the 'previous' state determined when it is restarted MUST be
   the state active prior to the command to shutdown.  See section 9.3.2
   concerning the use of the previous state upon server restart.

9.12.1. Upon entry to SHUTDOWN state

   When entering SHUTDOWN state, the server MUST record the previous
   state in stable storage for use when the server is restarted.  It
   also MUST record the current time as the last time operational.

   A server which is aware that it is shutting down SHOULD send a STATE
   message with the server-state field containing SHUTDOWN.

So when I shutdown the secondary peer, I thought it was going to do this,
but apparently not, as I saw stuff like peer not responding, going to
communications-interrupted and so forth. So I had to manually put the
primary in partner-down mode. Shutting down the dhcpserver on the
secondary was done with the redhat init script which just kills the
running process.

So I'm wondering: was this not "the right way" to shut dhcpd down, did I
do something else wrong, was this (deliberately) not implemented, or did I
stumble upon a bug?

Thanks for your answer!

Regards,

-- 
Guus Houtzager                           Email: guus at houtzager.net
PGP fingerprint = 5E E6 96 35 F0 64 34 14  CC 03 2B 36 71 FB 4B 5D
Early to rise, early to bed, makes a man healthy, wealthy and dead.
        --Rincewind, The Light Fantastic