Recommendation for redundancy

[Bob Harold]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Simon Hobson <dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:

> "Pereida, Alejandro" <APereida at IID.com> wrote:
>
> > We have been using a single Linux server as our DHCP server running ISC
> DHCP Server 4.3.1
> > We are building a “secondary datacenter” for disaster recovery purposes.
> What is the most recommended
> > Option for implementing a redundant DHCP server scenario in case the
> main datacenter (where the DHCP server resides)
> > goes dark?
>
> You need to expand a bit - is this to support the existing addresses, or
> another range, or something else ? And are the sites permanently networked
> together ?
>
> In principle, all you need to do is add another server in a failover pair
> - and then both servers will support the same address range(s). Given the
> additional hop, it's likely that the on-site server will handle requests
> most of the time as it'll get a reply back to the clients first.
>
>
The two servers will share the load, unless you change "split", "hba", or
"load balance max seconds".  Setting "split" to 255 is probably what you
want if you want the primary server to answer everyone, and the failover to
only answer if the primary is unreachable.
https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-00502/0/A-Basic-Guide-to-Configuring-DHCP-Failover.html

-- 
Bob Harold
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20180306/1d1864d6/attachment.html>