Moriah Waterland wrote: > Dave, > > Cool! I looked all over and couldn't find those instructions. I would > really appreciate it if you would point me to them. I'd like to try this > out. >
Well, we don't necessarily provide much in that way of instructions for setting up a configuration that's not recommended. What little there is would be at: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-3000/dhcp-plan-1?a=view If you require deterministic assignment of clients to servers, then you have to provide static (or sometimes called reserved in the docs) assignment of each client and not provide any addresses that are unassigned. Dave > thanks, > -Moriah > > Dave Miner wrote: >> Moriah Waterland wrote: >>> Bruce, >>> >>> According to the docs and other sources it doesn't appear to be possible >>> to set up two active Solaris DHCP servers on the same subnet and achieve >>> consistent and predictable behavior. However, it does seem to be >>> possible to set up your desired environment using two ISC DHCP servers. >>> I believe that you would need to configure each of those servers to only >>> respond to a specified set of MAC addresses. FYI, I am planning on >>> trying this and will let you know what I come up with. >>> >> You can do this with the Solaris DHCP server, too, though ISC has some >> features that *can* make this easier in some circumstances. Setting up >> manual assignments is the only way you'll get predictable behavior with >> multiple DHCP servers on the same link, no matter whose server you're >> using - it's inherent in the way the protocol works. >> >> Dave >> >> >>> I am cc'ing my response to networking-discuss. I know that some of the >>> folks on that alias have a lot of expertise in this area. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Moriah >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Bruce Rothermal wrote: >>>> Hi, Good Morning >>>> >>>> I saw some discussion going on here about DHCP and installadm. I >>>> wondering if anybody on this list can point me to the DHCP expert for >>>> OpenSolaris. I need to setup an environment which has 2 DHCP servers >>>> and make then work together. >>>> >>>> One DHCP server is Solaris 10 and we have these procedures down. The >>>> other has to be on OpenSolaris. So far using the tools available we >>>> have not figured out how to tell the DHCP server you are in >>>> >>>> Address space 10.134.0.0 netmask 255.225.224.0 >>>> So addresses will be from 10.134.0.0 to 10.134.31.254 >>>> manage and assign addresses from 10.134.3.0 - 10.134.3.31 with a >>>> given mac to IP address ta >>>> >>>> We can know how to tell the Solaris dhcp server to not manage >>>> 10.134.3.0 - 10.134.3.31 while the OpenSolaris dhcp server is online >>>> but we don't know how to tell the OpenSolaris dhcp server to ignore >>>> the rest or the 10.134.0.0 address space. >>>> >>>> Also this is a test environment so the address range that the >>>> opensolaris dhcp server will manage will change as system hardware is >>>> reallocated over time. We don't own all the systems, we sort of rent >>>> and we have to play nice within the whole. >>>> >>>> Any help will be very greatly appreciated. Thank you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruce Rothermal >>>> Email: bruce.rothermal at sun.com >>>> Skype: bruce.rothermal >>>> Google Talk: bruce.rothermal at gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >>> Subject: [networking-discuss] ISC DHCP Actions... >>> From: James Carlson (jame... at sun.com) >>> Date: Sep 26, 2008 2:52:39 pm >>> List: org.opensolaris.networking-discuss >>> >>> Harely Race writes: >>> >>> Thanks for the quick reply. The second link was where I saw a >>> "discussion" of >>> replacing Sun dhcpd with ISC's. I was just wondering if it had taken >>> off the >>> ground or had the whole "proposal" be scrubbed. >>> >>> As far as I know, no. >>> >>> "Anyone can complain ..." >>> >>> I take it that you really don't like people complaing? Yes, it can be >>> tiresome >>> at times and demoralizing at other times, but sometimes it does one good >>> to at >>> least hear out the complaint. >>> >>> No ... I guess I should have been more verbose in my answer. >>> >>> There's a big difference between saying "we should ditch that awful X >>> code and replace it with Y code!" on a mailing list on one hand, and >>> actually having a coherent _plan_ to make such a replacement on the >>> other. It's that latter part that I haven't seen for ISC DHCP. >>> >>> Simply ripping out the existing DHCP server and tossing in the ISC one >>> is -- I believe -- a non-starter. It would instantly break all of the >>> people currently *using* the existing DHCP server. There must at least >>> be an upgrade strategy or facility that makes the replacement *possible*. >>> >>> Second, someone needs to look into the features of the existing DHCP >>> server and figure out how they match up against the ISC one. Where the >>> ISC one lacks a feature or lags in performance, that someone would have >>> to figure out whether that feature "matters" to the users (and thus >>> could be dropped) or whether the ISC server needs to be fixed. >>> >>> Finally, someone has to do the actual engineering work to remove the >>> packages for the old server, put the new one in place, and test the heck >>> out of it, including all the machinery used for upgrades. >>> >>> Note that allowing them to "co-exist" isn't a reasonable option, as it >>> just foists the costs off onto the users, who have to determine which >>> one to use, and have to cope (somehow!) with projects that target >>> integration with one or the other server, but not both. (As in "sure, >>> you can use our new WhizBang platform, but you have to turn off the ISC >>> server and use Sun's because we haven't bothered to deliver the new >>> options needed for ISC.") >>> >>> Another reason why "co-existing" isn't a good answer is that for users >>> who want that, they can already do it *today*. Just download the ISC >>> server and run it. Having an integrated and supported answer is much >>> more work than just adding yet more packages to the system. >>> >>> I think complaining is nice, and might even motivate someone to do >>> something, but it's not the equivalent of work, or anything like a >>> "plan." Hence my comment: anyone can complain ... but having a plan >>> takes work. >>> >>> Harely Race writes: >>> >>> Piotr Jasiukajtis wrote: >>> >>> "Indeed. Solaris DHCP Server is much better then ISC dhcpd." >>> >>> What makes it so much more superior than ISC's implementation? Can it >>> function >>> as a PXE server? >>> >>> Of course. That's how we use it ourselves for net-installing x86 >>> systems. I've used both, and I find Sun's easier to set up and learn to >>> use. But I guess that's just me. >>> >>> -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun >>> Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS >>> UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
