Hi,
I plan to reorganise our IP management and I'd like to implement a slave DHCP server. Right now we assign IP addresses based on the ethernetadress of a client 1:1.
The tutorial here [1] is simple and looks like the thing I need.
I do have a lot of subnetworks and my cisco router has an DHCP helper address set. I know I'll have to add the second dhcp-server address.
My questions now is:
Dose the dhcp-slave syncs the dhcp data from the master?
Or do I have to copy the data to the master AND slave?
Any other sugesstions or comments?
Thanks and best regards,
Götz
[1] http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-set-up-dhcp-failover-on-centos5.1
On 29/07/10 9:55 PM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Hi,
I plan to reorganise our IP management and I'd like to implement a slave DHCP server. Right now we assign IP addresses based on the ethernetadress of a client 1:1.
The tutorial here [1] is simple and looks like the thing I need.
I do have a lot of subnetworks and my cisco router has an DHCP helper address set. I know I'll have to add the second dhcp-server address.
My questions now is:
Dose the dhcp-slave syncs the dhcp data from the master?
Or do I have to copy the data to the master AND slave?
Any other sugesstions or comments?
Thanks and best regards,
Götz
Hi, I thought the latest dhcp server had built-in support for master-slave scenarios, it just replicates current status to the slave, and when it fails the slave takes over.
Phil.
Am 29.07.10 14:29, schrieb Phil Manuel:
On 29/07/10 9:55 PM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Hi,
I plan to reorganise our IP management and I'd like to implement a slave DHCP server. Right now we assign IP addresses based on the ethernetadress of a client 1:1.
The tutorial here [1] is simple and looks like the thing I need.
I do have a lot of subnetworks and my cisco router has an DHCP helper address set. I know I'll have to add the second dhcp-server address.
My questions now is:
Dose the dhcp-slave syncs the dhcp data from the master?
Or do I have to copy the data to the master AND slave?
Any other sugesstions or comments?
Thanks and best regards,
Götz
Hi, I thought the latest dhcp server had built-in support for master-slave scenarios, it just replicates current status to the slave, and when it fails the slave takes over.
Do you have any more information on that or do you just think it is like that? I can't find any docs on that, so any hint is welcome!
cheers . Götz
G?tz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator writes:
Hi,
I plan to reorganise our IP management and I'd like to implement a slave DHCP server. Right now we assign IP addresses based on the ethernetadress of a client 1:1.
The tutorial here [1] is simple and looks like the thing I need.
I do have a lot of subnetworks and my cisco router has an DHCP helper address set. I know I'll have to add the second dhcp-server address.
My questions now is:
Dose the dhcp-slave syncs the dhcp data from the master?
Or do I have to copy the data to the master AND slave?
Any other sugesstions or comments?
The servers will balance the pool(s) between them. It's actually fun (for personal preference values of "fun") to tail the logs on both servers after starting the slave and watch dhcpd communicate.
--------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments may contain Cypress (or its subsidiaries) confidential information. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message. ---------------------------------------------------------------
Am 29.07.10 14:31, schrieb Lars Hecking:
G?tz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator writes:
Hi,
I plan to reorganise our IP management and I'd like to implement a slave DHCP server. Right now we assign IP addresses based on the ethernetadress of a client 1:1.
The tutorial here [1] is simple and looks like the thing I need.
I do have a lot of subnetworks and my cisco router has an DHCP helper address set. I know I'll have to add the second dhcp-server address.
My questions now is:
Dose the dhcp-slave syncs the dhcp data from the master?
Or do I have to copy the data to the master AND slave?
Any other sugesstions or comments?
The servers will balance the pool(s) between them. It's actually fun (for personal preference values of "fun") to tail the logs on both servers after starting the slave and watch dhcpd communicate.
So they "only" balance the pool and no 1:1 assignment from IP:Host-MAC-address.
hm ...
Thanks for your answere.
Cheers - Götz
The servers will balance the pool(s) between them. It's actually fun (for personal preference values of "fun") to tail the logs on both servers after starting the slave and watch dhcpd communicate.
So they "only" balance the pool and no 1:1 assignment from IP:Host-MAC-address.
Sorry, I had to re-read your original posting ...
The best way to set this up is to have a minimal dhcp.conf on both servers that contains global definitions and the failover section, and then includes another config file that contains everything else - the shared-network block with pools, groups etc. This second config file is the same for both servers and you need to keep it in sync.
--------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments may contain Cypress (or its subsidiaries) confidential information. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message. ---------------------------------------------------------------
Am 29.07.10 15:03, schrieb Lars Hecking:
The servers will balance the pool(s) between them. It's actually fun (for personal preference values of "fun") to tail the logs on both servers after starting the slave and watch dhcpd communicate.
So they "only" balance the pool and no 1:1 assignment from IP:Host-MAC-address.
Sorry, I had to re-read your original posting ...
No problem :)
The best way to set this up is to have a minimal dhcp.conf on both servers that contains global definitions and the failover section, and then includes another config file that contains everything else - the shared-network block with pools, groups etc. This second config file is the same for both servers and you need to keep it in sync.
Thanks for that, it sounds a good way.
cheers . Götz
On 7/29/2010 8:03 AM, Lars Hecking wrote:
The servers will balance the pool(s) between them. It's actually fun (for personal preference values of "fun") to tail the logs on both servers after starting the slave and watch dhcpd communicate.
So they "only" balance the pool and no 1:1 assignment from IP:Host-MAC-address.
Sorry, I had to re-read your original posting ...
The best way to set this up is to have a minimal dhcp.conf on both servers that contains global definitions and the failover section, and then includes another config file that contains everything else - the shared-network block with pools, groups etc. This second config file is the same for both servers and you need to keep it in sync.
Do you know if you have to do anything special in the case where the primary server has been down for a while and is then brought back up? That is, does the backup automatically re-sync the database with the new leases that have been given out, or does it not have to?
Do you know if you have to do anything special in the case where the primary server has been down for a while and is then brought back up? That is, does the backup automatically re-sync the database with the new leases that have been given out, or does it not have to?
Nope, it's all automatic - that's the point, after all :)
Check out the FAILOVER STARTUP section in dhcpd.conf(5).
--------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments may contain Cypress (or its subsidiaries) confidential information. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message. ---------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/29/2010 3:36 PM, Lars Hecking wrote:
Do you know if you have to do anything special in the case where the primary server has been down for a while and is then brought back up? That is, does the backup automatically re-sync the database with the new leases that have been given out, or does it not have to?
Nope, it's all automatic - that's the point, after all :)
Check out the FAILOVER STARTUP section in dhcpd.conf(5).
OK, I can confirm it works. I had been putting off changing my dhcp service for years because the last time I changed it a lot of clients (back in Win95/98 days) didn't switch gracefully and the old dhcp server never had downtime. But, this time everything still seems happy and will accept the ack to continue a lease from either of the new failover servers.
-
Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator -
Lars Hecking -
Les Mikesell -
Phil Manuel