DHCP code in 2.0.4+

[Arran Cudbard-Bell]

On 9/6/09 13:58, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 09:24 +0200, Alan DeKok wrote:
>>    Umm.... no.  It means they protocol was designed from an incomplete
>> problem statement, and an incomplete knowledge of the system.  That
>> isn't good engineering practice.
>
> Maybe - but it's the way a good many, in fact most, of the main
> protocols we use today have become what they are. People do their best,
> then the real world comes along and reminds them of all the things they
> forgot. It's normal for stuff to need fixing.
>
> This doesn't mean DHCP failover is a good protocol. There are enough
> legitimate gripes to throw rocks at.
>
>>    See earlier messages in this thread.  I (a) found a theoretical issue
>> with the protocol, and (b) demonstrated it in a live system.
>
> I missed it. What was it again?
>

When we tried it back in 2007 with an Active/Active configuration, the two instances of ISC DHCPD started handing out duplicate leases completely arbitrarily. We scrapped the second instance and went 
down to a single one. Haven't tried it again since.

It didn't work then... it may do now.

Arran
-- 
Arran Cudbard-Bell (A.Cudbard-Bell at sussex.ac.uk),
Authentication, Authorisation and Accounting Officer,
Infrastructure Services (IT Services),
E1-1-08, Engineering 1, University Of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QT
DDI+FAX: +44 1273 873900 | INT: 3900
GPG: 86FF A285 1AA1 EE40 D228 7C2E 71A9 25BB 1E68 54A2