spawning class in ha setup?
Nils-Henner Krueger
nhk at snhc-krueger.de
Wed Dec 16 19:03:33 UTC 2009
I seem to observe a strange behaviour when trying to use a ha setup and
a spawning class together.
I'm evaluating a ha setup, using dhcpd version 4.1.0p1.
Primary config is
failover peer "cluster" {
primary;
address 192.168.2.2;
port 519;
peer address 192.168.2.3;
peer port 520;
max-response-delay 60;
max-unacked-updates 10;
mclt 3600;
split 128;
load balance max seconds 3;
}
Secondary config is
failover peer "cluster" {
secondary;
address 192.168.2.3;
port 520;
peer address 192.168.2.2;
peer port 519;
max-response-delay 60;
max-unacked-updates 10;
load balance max seconds 3;
}
Beside this I configured a limit on the allowed leases per client based
on agent.circuit-id like this:
class "customer" {
spawn with option agent.circuit-id;
lease limit 1;
}
I'm trying to lease and release IPs from a bunch of dummy clients in an
endless loop, using birds eye load generator. While testing a single
dhcp server that works fine. But as soon as I change to ha setup, only
the first run works and after that all clients are denied like this:
Dec 16 19:30:45 dhcp0 dhcpd: [ID 702911 local6.info] DHCPDISCOVER from
00:ff:ff:61:d1:b3 via 10.30.136.1
Dec 16 19:30:45 dhcp0 dhcpd: [ID 702911 local6.info] DHCPOFFER on
10.30.139.229 to 00:ff:ff:61:d1:b3 () via 10.30.136.1
Dec 16 19:30:45 dhcp0 dhcpd: [ID 702911 local6.info] DHCPREQUEST for
10.30.139.229 (192.168.1.10) from 00:ff:ff:61:d1:b3 () via 10.30.136.1
Dec 16 19:30:45 dhcp0 dhcpd: [ID 702911 local6.info] DHCPACK on
10.30.139.229 to 00:ff:ff:61:d1:b3 () via 10.30.136.1
[...]
Dec 16 19:31:31 dhcp0 dhcpd: [ID 702911 local6.info] DHCPRELEASE of
10.30.139.229 from 00:ff:ff:61:d1:b3 () via 10.30.136.1 (found)
[...]
Dec 16 19:32:01 dhcp0 dhcpd: [ID 702911 local6.info] DHCPDISCOVER from
00:ff:ff:61:d1:b3 via 10.30.136.1: no available billing: lease limit
reached in all matching classes
What's going wrong? Is a spawning class incompatible with ha setup? Do I
have to do something special to bring these to features together? Is
this a known bug? :-)
Thanks for insights...
nils-henner
More information about the dhcp-users
mailing list