<div dir="ltr">Neither stopping the primary peer (resulting in a "communications_interrupted" state on the secondary peer) nor changing the primary peer state to "partner_down" via OMAPI cause the secondary peer to perform dynamic DNS updates.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Simon Hobson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dhcp1@thehobsons.co.uk" target="_blank">dhcp1@thehobsons.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">Matthew Kassawara <<a href="mailto:matthew.kassawara@blinker.com">matthew.kassawara@blinker.com</a><wbr>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> If I simulate failure of the primary DHCPD instance<br>
<br>
</span>Are you doing that properly, and putting the peer into partner down state ?<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
dhcp-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:dhcp-users@lists.isc.org">dhcp-users@lists.isc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.isc.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/dhcp-users</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>