failover and loadbalance for relayed requests

[Cuttler, Brian (HEALTH)]

I had wondered about that, seemed to me that was the mechanism to determine which server replied what percentage of the time, since allocation of IP addresses is not going to do the job, you have to decide to answer based on the question, not on the pool size. 

I did not understand that after reading most of the FAQ yesterday, I did not follow up with the referenced FAQ having to do with the pool split, which is not the correct term for this.

Thanks - about to implement this at my site and this discussion was very timely for me.

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org [mailto:dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Steven Carr
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:53 AM
To: Users of ISC DHCP
Subject: Re: failover and loadbalance for relayed requests

On 3 June 2015 at 16:45, Sean McMurray <sean at mvtel.com> wrote:
> You define which pools they share and what the split is. For example, 
> you could have the primary serve 2/3 of the pool, and have the 
> secondary serve 1/3.

That must be the most misunderstood part of DHCP failover.

The split *does not* determine the share of the pool. The pool is
*always* balanced 50/50. The split value determines which peer will respond to the client based on the hashed value of the client identifier (MAC address).

Steve
_______________________________________________
dhcp-users mailing list
dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users