I suppose if one was consistently faster than the other you would have this situation. Was one of them steam powered, or did it have significantly different network connectivity. I suppose if one were even minutely faster than the other then it would be used exclusively.
Gaz ""Chuck"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > 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=45066&t=45045 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
