Why would addresses from a range not appear in the lease file
Friesen, Don MTIC:EX
Don.Friesen at gov.bc.ca
Mon Apr 25 13:56:08 UTC 2016
>> Only addresses 1010.200.239 through 10.10.200.253 appear in the
>> dhcpd.leases file, the others in the secondary range, 10.10.200.226
>> through 10.10.200.238 do not.
>>
>> What would cause this?
>
> Do the configurations for the shared network in question match on both servers?
The segments of the config that describe the shared networks are generated on another server and shared to the two equally.
> And the leases.dhcpd files?
These same IPs are in each servers lease files.
> Has each server been restarted to load the new configuration?
Yes. When a configuration change happens, the script that builds the files forces a restart.
> Are there any unexpected log messages referring to communication between the servers?
No unexpected messages were seen in the log files.
Over the weekend, 3 addresses that previously did not have lease records now do have lease records.
10.10.200.225 Gateway fjorv042.lan.net.gov.bc.ca
10.10.200.226 Dynamic
10.10.200.227 Dynamic
10.10.200.228 Dynamic
10.10.200.229 Dynamic
10.10.200.230 Dynamic
10.10.200.231 Dynamic
10.10.200.232 Dynamic
10.10.200.233 Dynamic
10.10.200.234 Dynamic
10.10.200.235 Dynamic
10.10.200.236 Dynamic
10.10.200.237 Dynamic Dynamic 54EE750 <-- not in leases file previously
10.10.200.238 Dynamic Dynamic 54EE754 <-- not in leases file previously
10.10.200.239 Dynamic Dynamic 3C18A0
10.10.200.240 Dynamic Dynamic 3C970E
10.10.200.241 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.242 Dynamic Dynamic 54EE75
10.10.200.243 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.244 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.245 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.246 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.247 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.248 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.249 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.250 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.251 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.252 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.253 Dynamic Dynamic
10.10.200.254 ---->> Available
The first column of "Dynamic" is the range, the second is what is seen in the leases file. My understanding was that with failover all IPs appear in the leases file, active or not.
If it wasn't for the 239 address, I might have thought the mask was wrong initially. But now two additional addresses have appeared in the dhcpd.leases file, and been assigned out. The servers must know about them internally, they are just not being recorded in the dhcpd.leases file.
>
> I hope this helps.
It helps to know I'm not crazy for thinking that failover should be recording the available IPs as well as those taken.
>
> Best regards,
> Niall O'Reilly
Don Friesen
More information about the dhcp-users
mailing list