On 9/6/09 13:58, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 09:24 +0200, Alan DeKok wrote:
Umm.... no. It means they protocol was designed from an incomplete
problem statement, and an incomplete knowledge of the system. That
isn't good engineering practice.
Maybe - but it's the way a good many, in fact most, of the main
protocols we use today have become what they are. People do their best,
then the real world comes along and reminds them of all the things they
forgot. It's normal for stuff to need fixing.
This doesn't mean DHCP failover is a good protocol. There are enough
legitimate gripes to throw rocks at.
See earlier messages in this thread. I (a) found a theoretical issue
with the protocol, and (b) demonstrated it in a live system.
I missed it. What was it again?
When we tried it back in 2007 with an Active/Active configuration, the two instances of ISC DHCPD started handing out duplicate leases completely arbitrarily. We scrapped the second instance and went
down to a single one. Haven't tried it again since.
It didn't work then... it may do now.
Arran
--
Arran Cudbard-Bell (a.cudbard-b...@sussex.ac.uk),
Authentication, Authorisation and Accounting Officer,
Infrastructure Services (IT Services),
E1-1-08, Engineering 1, University Of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QT
DDI+FAX: +44 1273 873900 | INT: 3900
GPG: 86FF A285 1AA1 EE40 D228 7C2E 71A9 25BB 1E68 54A2
-
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
