Inconsistent renews from F/O peers

Mark Sandrock sandrock at
Mon May 11 19:07:40 UTC 2015

Thanks for that info, Shawn.


Sent from my iPhone

> On May 11, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Shawn Routhier <sar at> wrote:
>> On May 11, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Simon Hobson <dhcp1 at> wrote:
>> Mark Sandrock <sandrock at> wrote:
>>>    it sometimes happens that shortly
>>> after obtaining an initial lease of MCLT,
>>> (3600 seconds), some Windows clients
>>> send a broadcast renew request that
>>> is responded to differently by the two
>>> failover peers.
>>> Although this seems incorrect behavior
>>> on the switch'es part, the pathological
>>> behavior of Windows renewing a lease
>>> only 3 seconds into it, also seems wrong.
>> When this happens, do you have any indication how long it took to get the reply back to the client ?
>> I'm wondering if a combination of factors (delay by the server, delay by the switch (I assume that the DHCP packets are being handled by the management CPU)) are leading to a delay at the client which is long enough for it to retry - hence the second renew after 3 seconds.
>> You may need to leave a packet capture running until you capture an event. IIRC there is a field (who's name escapes me at the moment) in the packet which indicates how long the client has been trying - if the first packet has 0 and the second has 3, then this would seem to support the hypothesis.
> It is the “secs” field.
> **
> Another item to check is if dhcp-cache-threshold is enabled on both servers.
> This is a feature to limit the number of times the servers touch the lease file.
> If a client requests a renew early instead of handing out a full lease the server
> simply hands out the previous lease again, correcting the lease time it sends 
> as necessary.  So when renewing a lease of 3600 seconds 3 seconds after
> it was handed out the server would hand out a time period of 3597 seconds.
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at

More information about the dhcp-users mailing list