Interesting Behavior with Solaris 2.8

[Glenn Satchell]

There's some interesting "features" in older versions of Solaris
dhcpagent, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is a bug or known problem.
Perhaps some googling for solaris dhcpagent subnet mask might get
something?

What setting do ou have for netmasks in /etc/nsswitch.conf? Could it be
picking up a different subnet mask via nis or nisplus?

regards,
-glenn

> The /etc/ files are for the second interface's benefit. I'm only
> configuring the dmfe0 interface with dhcp. The dmfe1 interface is
> generally customized differently by the user. Also, I can't guarantee
> that there is a dhcp server on the second interface. They're on 2
> different subnets.
>
> The thing that gets me is that without waking up dhcpagent, the netmask
> and IP pair on the second interface can be completely controlled by the
> netmasks and hostname.dmfe1 files, even if they break rules of
> subnetting. If I do invoke dhcpagent some strange set of rules apply
> that don't adhere to subnet masking at all. For instance, with dhcpagent
> controlling dmfe0, I can set the IP of dmfe1 to 10.1.65.25 in
> hostname.dmfe1 and /16 in /etc/netmasks and that's how the interface
> gets configured. If I try to set the dmfe1 to 10.1.1.1 with 10.1.0.0
> 255.255.0.0 in /etc/netmasks, the interface cones up with a /24 mask.
> AFAIK, 10.1.1.1 is a totally legit address in the 10.1.0.0/16 subnet.
>
> Thanks for the comments,
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org
> [mailto:dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Neff_Glen at emc.com
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 6:16 AM
> To: dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> Subject: RE: Interesting Behavior with Solaris 2.8
>
> Many aspects of Solaris' IP stack have been a mystery to me, but why
> would you be touching /etc/netmasks if you're using DHCP to configure
> the interfaces?  The subnetmasks should be specified in your dhcpd
> config.
>
> Also, are you sure this isn't old lease info cached in /etc/dhcp/dhc.*
> on the solaris host?
>
> -G
>
>
> /*
>  * Glen R. J. Neff
>  * RTP TSG Lab Team
>  * neff_glen at emc.com
>  *
>  * EMC^2 == E^2
>  */
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org on behalf of John Tabasz
> (jtabasz)
> Sent: Thu 8/13/2009 7:48 PM
> To: Users of ISC DHCP
> Subject: Interesting Behavior with Solaris 2.8
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a Sun V100 running Solaris 2.8. I want dmfe0 to be under the
> control of the dhcpagent on Solaris and dmfe1 to be statically
> controlled.
> Previous to running a DHCP server in this environment I had no problems
> configuring the Sun the way I want them to be.
>
> My secondary interface, dmfe1 I want to be configured as 10.1.1.1 with
> the netmask of 255.255.0.0. This is a legitimate combination of values.
> I do the following in order to do this.
> #cat /etc/netmasks
> 192.168.25.0	255.255.255.0
> 10.1.0.0	255.255.0.0
>
> #cat /etc/hostname.dmfe1
> 10.1.1.1
>
> Before I introduced dhcp to the environment, on booting, the server
> would come up with the following interface configuration for dmfe1:
>
> dmfe1: flags=1000843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 1500 index
> 3
>         inet 10.1.1.1 netmask ffff0000 broadcast 10.1.255.255
>
> This looks completely legitimate to me. 10.1.1.1 is a legitimate address
> in the subnet 10.1.0.0.
>
> However, I introduced dhcpd into the environment and use it to deliver
> address and dns and hostname information for the other interface only.
> On the client I run
> #echo primary > /etc/dhcp.dmfe0   to allow dhcpagent to control the
> interface.
> When the V100 comes up, even though the dhcpagent should have nothing to
> do with the dmfe1 interface, dmfe1 gets configured such with the same
> values in the /etc/netmasks and /etc/hostname.dmfe1 files:
>
> dmfe1: flags=1000843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 1500 index
> 3
>         inet 10.1.1.1 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 10.1.1.255
>
> So for some reason the control of dmfe1 is bleeding over from dmfe0, and
> it's behaving in a way that looks like it violates subnetmasking rules.
>
> Can anyone comment on this? Do I need to upgrade my dhcpagent rev or
> something?
>
> Thanks in Advance,
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>