Question
Leslie Rhorer
lesrhorer at siliconventures.net
Fri Jun 3 14:03:37 UTC 2022
Hmm. I am not seeing any responses going out from the backup
server, but when I check, I don't see any incoming requests, either.
Shouldn't the requests be broadcast packets? With the primary shut
down, requests are coming in to the primary and no responses are going out.
On 6/3/2022 8:48 AM, Leslie Rhorer wrote:
> Phew! 'Much better. I think. I haven't seen any responses going out
> from the seconday, but then only 4 have gone out so far from the
> primary. It says the max mis-bal is 6, which I presume 6 means might
> go out one interface before the other catches up? We will let it run
> an hour or so and see if the secondary catches up, and if the leases
> files are updated.
>
> On 6/3/2022 8:23 AM, Leslie Rhorer wrote:
>>
>> On 6/3/2022 5:03 AM, Glenn Satchell wrote:
>>> ok, now we are getting somewhere...
>>>
>>> Note startup error messages should be in syslog, or perhaps
>>> "systemctl status isc-dhcp-server" will show them.
>> I have it logging to /var/log/dhcp/dhcp.log with logrotate
>> enabled for the directory, but that doesn't really matter.
>>>
>>> So having the "wrong" network range would cause issues, the requests
>>> come in from a certain subnet, and the server tries to match the
>>> requests to a subnet definition, but of course on the secondary
>>> server it doesn't have 192.168.0.0 so it can't offer an address.
>>> That explains why there is no requests being served.
>> I think maybe you lost me. Both are on the same /23 subnet, just
>> in one case not where I wanted them. Both 192.168.0.200 - 240 and
>> 192.168.1.220 - 240 are on 192.168.0/23.
>>>
>>> Next in the failover peer section, both config files have "primary".
>>> One of them needs to be "secondary"
>> How the heck did that happen? I could swear one was set to
>> "secondary".
>>> , eg changing backup to be the back up server should have this as
>>> the failover peer setting. mclt is only specified on primary. This
>>> would definitely be causing problems now as you have top primary
>>> failover peers for the same subnet. Before there were two different
>>> subnets, so no clashes as failover is done on a subnet by subnet
>>> basis. You could have different peers for each subnet for example.
>> Hmm, OK, maybe I follow.
>>> With this change I think it should work now... fingers crossed :)
>>>
>> Yeah. What you said.
More information about the dhcp-users
mailing list