<br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/2/21 Łukasz Siemiradzki <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lukasz.siemiradzki@gmail.com" target="_blank">lukasz.siemiradzki@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hello,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>2013/2/21 Cedric OLLIVIER <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ollivier.cedric@gmail.com" target="_blank">ollivier.cedric@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br><br>I am focusing on deploying the two DHCP servers which share the same address pool (failover) at different shedulings.<br>
I suppose the primary should be launched first but the backup server could be the first available in some cases.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>What you mean by different schedulings? Usually, primary and failover operates on the same time.<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I would like a local server to manage the dhcp requests even if the remote peer has not been reachable yet (no sync was done before).<br>It is possible that one server operates alone without its peer if it is configured as follows:<br>
<div style="margin-left:40px">failover peer "dhcp-failover" state {<br> my state partner-down;<br>}<br></div><br>Primary can manage the adress pool without any previous synchronisation (state "partner-down").<br>
On the other hand, the following test indicates that secondary can't.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>
</div><div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Could you, please, confirm that the secondary cannot be launched first?<br></blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I have already tested this case and the leases offered by the secondary are incorrect and rejected by clients.<br><br>Here is the output of the dhclient resulting from this test :<br>
<br>
<div style="margin-left:40px">root@client:~# dhclient -v eth0<br>
Internet Systems Consortium DHCP Client 4.1.1-P1<br>
Copyright 2004-2010 Internet Systems Consortium.<br>
All rights reserved.<br>
For info, please visit <a href="https://www.isc.org/software/dhcp/" target="_blank">https://www.isc.org/software/dhcp/</a><br>
<br>
Listening on LPF/eth0/b2:4a:6c:3d:26:d7<br>
Sending on LPF/eth0/b2:4a:6c:3d:26:d7<br>
Sending on Socket/fallback<br>
DHCPDISCOVER on eth0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 7<br>
DHCPOFFER from 192.168.0.2<br>
DHCPREQUEST on eth0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67<br>
DHCPACK from 192.168.0.2<br>
<b>no expiry time on offered lease.</b><br>
DHCPDISCOVER on eth0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 8<br>
DHCPOFFER from 192.168.0.2<br>
DHCPREQUEST on eth0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67<br>
DHCPACK from 192.168.0.2<br>
<b>no expiry time on offered lease.</b></div>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Could you please include dhcpd.conf file.<br><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Here is the configuration of the secondary.<br><br>default-lease-time 600;<br>max-lease-time 7200;<br>
<br>failover peer "dhcp-failover" {<br> secondary;<br> address 192.168.0.2;<br> port 647;<br> peer address 192.168.0.1;<br> peer port 647;<br>}<br><br>failover peer "dhcp-failover" state {<br> my state partner-down;<br>
}<br><br>subnet 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {<br> pool {<br> failover peer "dhcp-failover";<br> range 192.168.0.100 192.168.0.200;<br> }<br>}<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br>
I don't find any solution to correct that. <br>
The version used is provided by Debian.<br><br>Thank you. Best regards, <br>Cédric OLLIVIER<br>
<br></div>_______________________________________________<br>
dhcp-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:dhcp-users@lists.isc.org" target="_blank">dhcp-users@lists.isc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users" target="_blank">https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best regards / Pozdrawiam<span><font color="#888888"><br>
Łukasz Siemiradzki<br>
</font></span></div><span><font color="#888888">-- <br><br>"Omnes homines natura scire desiderant"<br> Aristotelis
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
dhcp-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:dhcp-users@lists.isc.org" target="_blank">dhcp-users@lists.isc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users" target="_blank">https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users</a><br></blockquote></div><br>