Kyle McDonald writes:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > Kyle McDonald writes:
> >   
> >> 48ea4f19:  Datagram received on network device: mgmt0(limited broadcast)
> >> 48ea4f19:  Malformed ICMP message received from host 172.30.171.103: len 
> >> 84 != 64
> >>     
> >
> > This part means that we received a packet that was 84 bytes long (as
> > reported by recvfrom) and that had an IP length of 64.  I think the
> > DHCP server is wrong here; that shouldn't be treated as an error.
> >
> > If the IP length is greater than the received length, then the packet
> > has been truncated, and something's probably wrong.  But if it's less,
> > then that just means there's some padding we should have ignored.
> >
> >   
> Ok.

Sounds like a minor bug worth filing.  It's unclear if it has anything
to do with this problem, though.  (I don't _think_ it does.)

> > Find that guy.  Someone is reponding to the address that should not
> > currently be in use, because the lease is not valid.
> >
> >   
> That's the thing, the only machine on this network with that address is 
> the machine trying to renew that address.
> 
> It's had that address for a while, and renewed it before. During a 
> renew, shouldn't the current address holder respond to the ping from the 
> dhcp server?

Yes.  But if the lease runs out, the client is required to stop using
that address.  I'd bet that's the problem.

> > At a guess, the RHEL4u7 machine is responding to an ICMP ECHO message,
> > even though it doesn't have a current lease for that address.
> >
> >   
> I thikn it does have a lease, That's the address it's trying to renew 
> anyway.

I don't think you should see an ICMP ECHO generated by the server for
a simple lease renewal.  It should only be for a *new* lease.

> > If that's a correct guess (a long-term snoop showing correct lease
> > acquisition and eventual failure could provide more clues), then
> > that's an error on their part.  You can probably work around by
> > specifying the ICMP_VERIFY=FALSE option in /etc/inet/dhcpsvc.conf.
> >
> >   
> I'll try to get the snoop and see what it shows.  Thanks.

OK.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]

Reply via email to