On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:44:48AM +0300, Matti Saarinen wrote: > Chuck Anderson <c...@wpi.edu> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 08:40:23AM +0300, Matti Saarinen wrote: > >> We have a setup where one set of DHCP servers deliver IP configuration > >> to clients and another set of DHCP servers deliver the PXE options. This > > > > Don't do that. Clients do not aggregate DHCP options from different > > responses--they pick ONE DHCP server to bind to and use the info from > > that one only. That's how the DHCP spec is written. > > Actually, this setup has been working for years. I suppose the PXE code > is more flexible in that matter. In any case, it worries me that we have > been relying on a feature that may change without any notice when NIC > firmwares are updated. > > Back to my question: > > Based on the forum responses[1] I'd say we have to live with the > situation where we need to run dhcp-relay without forward-only on > interfaces connecting networks needing PXE. The annoying issue is that > every interface without forward-only eats one scale-subsrciber licence.
You can try using the legacy helpers configuration, but I'm not sure it works on MX10003: set forwarding-options helpers bootp server x.x.x.x set forwarding-options helpers bootp server y.y.y.y set forwarding-options helpers bootp server z.z.z.z set forwarding-options helpers bootp maximum-hop-count 16 set forwarding-options helpers bootp client-response-ttl 20 set forwarding-options helpers bootp interface xe-x/x/x.nnnn broadcast _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp