DHCP code in 2.0.4+
A.Cudbard-Bell at sussex.ac.uk
Tue Jun 9 15:07:08 CEST 2009
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 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
More information about the Freeradius-Users