Failover: sending SHUTDOWN to peer

David W. Hankins David_Hankins at
Thu Mar 8 17:10:16 UTC 2007

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:58:09AM +0100, Guus Houtzager wrote:
> 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.

There is no TERM handler yet, so killing the dhcp server doesn't
tell it to shutdown just exits wherever it is in

> 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?

The only way to shutdown the DHCP server 'gracefully' is to set the
OMAPI control state object to the correct integer value for 'shutdown'

Obviously this isn't really something that your /etc/rc scripts
can do automatically out of the box, so we really need to implement
a TERM handler one of these days...

ISC Training!  training at
Washington DC area, April 16-20 2007.  DNS & BIND, DDNS & DHCP.
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 mailing list