unsubscribe

Tue Jul 16 12:05:09 UTC 2013

unsubscribe

On 07/16/2013 07:00 AM, dhcp-users-request at lists.isc.org wrote:
> Send dhcp-users mailing list submissions to
> 	dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	dhcp-users-request at lists.isc.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	dhcp-users-owner at lists.isc.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of dhcp-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1.  (Oleg Gvozdev)
>     2. Fwd: (Oleg Gvozdev)
>     3. DHCP-relay: strange behavour when specifing multiple
>        interfaces (Oleg Gvozdev)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:21:53 +0400
> From: Oleg Gvozdev <jktu17 at gmail.com>
> To: dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> Message-ID:
> 	<CANV1Ld8AamrvRJDu0ACPs96Hk1Ny53-O_DwsEnmhobJ21McgVQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello.
>
> I'm using ISC DHCP package, 4.2.5-P1 version. I have a problem with
> dhcrelay when using more than one "-i" options.
>
> *Briefly: why requests are forwarded to dhcp-servers only through the last
> (specified by -i switch) interface?*
>
>
>
> 1.I have such network scheme:
> CLIENTS(net0)<--->RELAY(net0-net1)<--->DHCP_SERVER(net1)
>
> 2. Dhcp server properly configured and running
>
> 3. Dhcp-relay run as this: *dhcrelay -i eth1 -i eth0 10.0.1.2*, where eth0
> is net0, eth1 is net1, 10.0.1.2 - is dhcp server IP.
>
> 4.(BAD):  When clients try to get lease, relay says: Forwarded BOORREQUEST
> for ...MAC... to 10.0.1.2 and request realy forwarded to CLIENT(!!!)
> through eth0 iface. And, of couse, no lease is got.
>
> 5.(GOOD): Now if we run relay as is:* dhcrelay -i eth0 -i eth1 10.0.1.2  *-all
> is ok, request is now forwarded to SERVER through eth1 iface.
>
> I've looked in code and saw, that (i use USE_SOCKETS) in line 724 in file
> realy/dhcrelay.c such line ,which send request:
>
> if (send_packet((fallback_interface ? fallback_interface : interfaces),
> NULL, packet, length, ip->addresses[0], &sp->to, NULL) < 0) ....
>
> I've not use fallback_interface, so the 1st param to send_packet() is
> "struct interface_info *interfaces" array. Then send_packet() just use
> sendto(fd,...), where fd - is descriptor of 1st element(1st interface) of
> "interfaces" array. Also I use SO_BINDTODEVICE, so send_packet() writes to
> different interfaces depending on the order of them in command line , and
> in unpredictable order if i do not use "-i" at all.
>
> So, behaviour of dhcrelay is different depending on the order of "-i"
> params..
>
> *Is it normal? What do you suggest in such situatuion?
> *
> Thanks.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20130716/3e12c3a9/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:25:04 +0400
> From: Oleg Gvozdev <jktu17 at gmail.com>
> To: dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> Subject: Fwd:
> Message-ID:
> 	<CANV1Ld9GQLT-Jf9bd-yx5FeySQGaXiaAtyb=Y9T5Gh7c8WZc4Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello.
>
> I'm using ISC DHCP package, 4.2.5-P1 version. I have a problem with
> dhcrelay when using more than one "-i" options.
>
> *Briefly: why requests are forwarded to dhcp-servers only through the last
> (specified by -i switch) interface?*
>
>
> In detail:
>
> 1.I have such network scheme:
> CLIENTS(net0)<--->RELAY(net0-net1)<--->DHCP_SERVER(net1)
>
> 2. Dhcp server properly configured and running
>
> 3. Dhcp-relay run as this: *dhcrelay -i eth1 -i eth0 10.0.1.2*, where eth0
> is net0, eth1 is net1, 10.0.1.2 - is dhcp server IP.
>
> 4.(BAD):  When clients try to get lease, relay says: Forwarded BOORREQUEST
> for ...MAC... to 10.0.1.2 and request realy forwarded to CLIENT(!!!)
> through eth0 iface. And, of couse, no lease is got.
>
> 5.(GOOD): Now if we run relay as is:* dhcrelay -i eth0 -i eth1 10.0.1.2  *-all
> is ok, request is now forwarded to SERVER through eth1 iface.
>
> I've looked in code and saw, that (i use USE_SOCKETS) in line 724 in file
> realy/dhcrelay.c such line ,which send request:
>
> if (send_packet((fallback_interface ? fallback_interface : interfaces),
> NULL, packet, length, ip->addresses[0], &sp->to, NULL) < 0) ....
>
> I've not use fallback_interface, so the 1st param to send_packet() is
> "struct interface_info *interfaces" array. Then send_packet() just use
> sendto(fd,...), where fd - is descriptor of 1st element(1st interface) of
> "interfaces" array. Also I use SO_BINDTODEVICE, so send_packet() writes to
> different interfaces depending on the order of them in command line , and
> in unpredictable order if i do not use "-i" at all.
>
> So, behaviour of dhcrelay is different depending on the order of "-i"
> params..
>
> *Is it normal? What do you suggest in such situatuion?
> *
> Thanks.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20130716/e67f78b9/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:26:37 +0400
> From: Oleg Gvozdev <jktu17 at gmail.com>
> To: dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> Subject: DHCP-relay: strange behavour when specifing multiple
> 	interfaces
> Message-ID:
> 	<CANV1Ld9LJBu-wy2m-rYp37BycJATo+d0EKbXdQ4adJc2LsrgDA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello.
>
> I'm using ISC DHCP package, 4.2.5-P1 version. I have a problem with
> dhcrelay when using more than one "-i" options.
>
> *Briefly: why requests are forwarded to dhcp-servers only through the last
> (specified by -i switch) interface?*
>
>
> In detail:
>
> 1.I have such network scheme:
> CLIENTS(net0)<--->RELAY(net0-net1)<--->DHCP_SERVER(net1)
>
> 2. Dhcp server properly configured and running
>
> 3. Dhcp-relay run as this: *dhcrelay -i eth1 -i eth0 10.0.1.2*, where eth0
> is net0, eth1 is net1, 10.0.1.2 - is dhcp server IP.
>
> 4.(BAD):  When clients try to get lease, relay says: Forwarded BOORREQUEST
> for ...MAC... to 10.0.1.2 and request realy forwarded to CLIENT(!!!)
> through eth0 iface. And, of couse, no lease is got.
>
> 5.(GOOD): Now if we run relay as is:* dhcrelay -i eth0 -i eth1 10.0.1.2  *-all
> is ok, request is now forwarded to SERVER through eth1 iface.
>
> I've looked in code and saw, that (i use USE_SOCKETS) in line 724 in file
> realy/dhcrelay.c such line ,which send request:
>
> if (send_packet((fallback_interface ? fallback_interface : interfaces),
> NULL, packet, length, ip->addresses[0], &sp->to, NULL) < 0) ....
>
> I've not use fallback_interface, so the 1st param to send_packet() is
> "struct interface_info *interfaces" array. Then send_packet() just use
> sendto(fd,...), where fd - is descriptor of 1st element(1st interface) of
> "interfaces" array. Also I use SO_BINDTODEVICE, so send_packet() writes to
> different interfaces depending on the order of them in command line , and
> in unpredictable order if i do not use "-i" at all.
>
> So, behaviour of dhcrelay is different depending on the order of "-i"
> params..
>
> *Is it normal? What do you suggest in such situatuion?
> *
> Thanks.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20130716/0902fd97/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
> End of dhcp-users Digest, Vol 57, Issue 10
> ******************************************