DHCP code in 2.0.4+

[Arran Cudbard-Bell]

On 9/6/09 14:20, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 14:07 +0100, Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote:
>>>>     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.
>
> Thanks - but that's not a theoretical problem (necessarily). I'm
> interested in the protocol itself; Alan has been talking about an error
> in the protocol which would lead to failure *even if the protocol were
> implemented correctly*.
>
> What does "Active/Active" mean? Presumably not the same as
> "primary/primary", which would be a configuration error...
>

With a pair of servers running Active/Active means that both servers participate at the same time. In ISC terms this would be 'load sharing'.

Active/Passive generally refers to some kind of redundancy arrangement.

Regards,
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