Bruce,
According to the docs and other sources it doesn't appear to be possible
to set up two active Solaris DHCP servers on the same subnet and achieve
consistent and predictable behavior. However, it does seem to be
possible to set up your desired environment using two ISC DHCP servers.
I believe that you would need to configure each of those servers to only
respond to a specified set of MAC addresses. FYI, I am planning on
trying this and will let you know what I come up with.
I am cc'ing my response to networking-discuss. I know that some of the
folks on that alias have a lot of expertise in this area.
thanks,
Moriah
Bruce Rothermal wrote:
Hi, Good Morning
I saw some discussion going on here about DHCP and installadm. I
wondering if anybody on this list can point me to the DHCP expert for
OpenSolaris. I need to setup an environment which has 2 DHCP servers and
make then work together.
One DHCP server is Solaris 10 and we have these procedures down. The
other has to be on OpenSolaris. So far using the tools available we have
not figured out how to tell the DHCP server you are in
Address space 10.134.0.0 netmask 255.225.224.0
So addresses will be from 10.134.0.0 to 10.134.31.254
manage and assign addresses from 10.134.3.0 - 10.134.3.31 with a given
mac to IP address ta
We can know how to tell the Solaris dhcp server to not manage 10.134.3.0
- 10.134.3.31 while the OpenSolaris dhcp server is online but we don't
know how to tell the OpenSolaris dhcp server to ignore the rest or the
10.134.0.0 address space.
Also this is a test environment so the address range that the
opensolaris dhcp server will manage will change as system hardware is
reallocated over time. We don't own all the systems, we sort of rent and
we have to play nice within the whole.
Any help will be very greatly appreciated. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Rothermal
Email: [email protected]
Skype: bruce.rothermal
Google Talk: [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
Subject: [networking-discuss] ISC DHCP Actions...
From: James Carlson ([email protected])
Date: Sep 26, 2008 2:52:39 pm
List: org.opensolaris.networking-discuss
Harely Race writes:
Thanks for the quick reply. The second link was where I saw a
"discussion" of
replacing Sun dhcpd with ISC's. I was just wondering if it had taken off the
ground or had the whole "proposal" be scrubbed.
As far as I know, no.
"Anyone can complain ..."
I take it that you really don't like people complaing? Yes, it can be
tiresome
at times and demoralizing at other times, but sometimes it does one good
to at
least hear out the complaint.
No ... I guess I should have been more verbose in my answer.
There's a big difference between saying "we should ditch that awful X
code and replace it with Y code!" on a mailing list on one hand, and
actually having a coherent _plan_ to make such a replacement on the
other. It's that latter part that I haven't seen for ISC DHCP.
Simply ripping out the existing DHCP server and tossing in the ISC one
is -- I believe -- a non-starter. It would instantly break all of the
people currently *using* the existing DHCP server. There must at least
be an upgrade strategy or facility that makes the replacement *possible*.
Second, someone needs to look into the features of the existing DHCP
server and figure out how they match up against the ISC one. Where the
ISC one lacks a feature or lags in performance, that someone would have
to figure out whether that feature "matters" to the users (and thus
could be dropped) or whether the ISC server needs to be fixed.
Finally, someone has to do the actual engineering work to remove the
packages for the old server, put the new one in place, and test the heck
out of it, including all the machinery used for upgrades.
Note that allowing them to "co-exist" isn't a reasonable option, as it
just foists the costs off onto the users, who have to determine which
one to use, and have to cope (somehow!) with projects that target
integration with one or the other server, but not both. (As in "sure,
you can use our new WhizBang platform, but you have to turn off the ISC
server and use Sun's because we haven't bothered to deliver the new
options needed for ISC.")
Another reason why "co-existing" isn't a good answer is that for users
who want that, they can already do it *today*. Just download the ISC
server and run it. Having an integrated and supported answer is much
more work than just adding yet more packages to the system.
I think complaining is nice, and might even motivate someone to do
something, but it's not the equivalent of work, or anything like a
"plan." Hence my comment: anyone can complain ... but having a plan
takes work.
Harely Race writes:
Piotr Jasiukajtis wrote:
"Indeed. Solaris DHCP Server is much better then ISC dhcpd."
What makes it so much more superior than ISC's implementation? Can it
function
as a PXE server?
Of course. That's how we use it ourselves for net-installing x86
systems. I've used both, and I find Sun's easier to set up and learn to
use. But I guess that's just me.
-- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> 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]
