interesting. I did find a couple of things in the various command references and in some TAC docs that indicated your answer is better than mine.
OTOH, that still does not explain why 250 computers in eight different offices were all hitting the same DHCP server. The reason I know it to be true is that I had different scopes on each of the two servers. For example 192.168.4.50 through 150 on one server and 192.168.4.151 through 250 on the other. Chuck ""Chris Camplejohn"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Multiple "ip helper-address" on an interface has been supported for a long > time. There is no sequential order per se. The UDP broadcast packet is > converted to a unicast and sent to each address listed by a helper. I would > recommend using a sniffer on the target network to ensure you are getting > both helpered packets. > > You might be hitting an IOS bug, but a quick scan didn't turn up any good > hits... > > Chris > > > ""Elijah Savage"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Seeing the other ip helper question made me think of what I was working on > > in my lab. On Friday morning I get into work and there was a severity 1 > > ticket where about 800 employees could not log in. We discovered that one > > of the dhcp servers was down but we have 2 so in theory all should have > > been fine, on all of our routers we have both dhcp servers for ip helper. > > From reading some place in my long journey I am sure I read that ip helper > > would take a broadcast and change it to unicast and send traffic to all ip > > helper addresses regardless if it is down or not. But in this case that > > did not happen. To get everything back up I actually had to change the > > order that I had the ip helper addresses in. The server that was down I > > put it last and put the server that was up first and then everything > > started to work. So it seems as if some primary secondary thing is going > > on here. We are running ospf on our backbone with a variety of equipment > > configurations 6500's 5500's 3600's 2600's. All routers has a different > > version of IOS we have not had a chance to bring them all up to the same > > code what is similiar is they all have at least 12.0 on them. I want to > > try and figure this out myself so I started playing with this in the lab > > with 2600's running 12.1(5) IOS and I came across the same exact thing. > > Did this change with IOS 12 or something has anyone else experienced this? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45060&t=45045 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
