shared subnet declaration behavior between 2 pools

[project722]

Thanks all. I'm just trying to figure out if the "shared network" option
will automatically use our second pool when the first one gets full. But, I
think Bob has answered that question. If what he is saying is correct, then
my question is answered.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Patrick Trapp <ptrapp at nex-tech.com> wrote:

> All things being equal, I don’t know how it handles this. In our network,
> each pool in the shared network is assigned based on class matching (or not
> matching). In our case, each class matches a different type of device which
> gets a different configuration in addition to receiving an address from a
> different pool.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure, looking at your configuration here, why you need a shared
> network. What are you trying to accomplish?
>
>
>
> In our case, we have multiple networks that are all reaching the DHCP
> server via a particular network. In order for ISC DHCP to accept a request
> from network Z when the request came through network X, we define shared
> networks so that the server accepts the request as valid. Otherwise, it
> rejects the request. You don’t seem to have that type of scenario in your
> example.
>
>
>
> What problem are you trying to fix with a shared network?
>
>
>
> *From:* dhcp-users [mailto:dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org] *On Behalf
> Of *project722
> *Sent:* Monday, October 9, 2017 3:10 PM
> *To:* Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users at lists.isc.org>
> *Subject:* shared subnet declaration behavior between 2 pools
>
>
>
> Hello. im curious as to how dhcpd determines what pool to pull a lease
> from in a shared subnet declaration. for ex on our server we have:
>
>
>
> shared-network "Market 1" {
>
>         option domain-name "example.com";
>
>                 subnet 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
>
>                 option broadcast-address 192.168.1.255;
>
>                 option routers 192.168.1.1;
>
>                 pool {
>
>
>
>
>
>                        failover peer "dhcp-failover";
>
>                        range 192.168.1.10 192.168.1.254;
>
>
>
>         }
>
>         subnet 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
>
>                 option broadcast-address 192.168.2.255;
>
>                 option routers 192.168.2.1;
>
>                 pool {
>
>
>
>                         failover peer "dhcp-failover";
>
>                         range 192.168.2.10 192.168.2.254;
>
>
>
>
>
>                }
>
> }
>
>
>
> I would suspect that the broadcasts that come through these
> routers/gateways determine the pool that dhcp assigns a lease from. So, if
> a client requests is seen by the sever comes from 192.168.1.1 it will get a
> lease out of that pool, and if it sees that the client requests cvomes from
> 192.168.2.1 it will get a lease from that pool. Is my understanding correct
> on this? If that is correct, then what happens when the 192.168.1.0 network
> gets full? Does dhcpd have some type of algo that allows it to assign a
> lease from the 192.168.2.0 pool in order to prevent an out of leases
> condition?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20171009/71875579/attachment.html>