Eike Lantzsch wrote: > DHCP failover on a small network does not seem to be worth the > effort, except for training purposes. Exactly that is why this > thread was very informative for me. Just for kicks (training) I was > trying for a while to set up two dhcp servers on my network. One > OpenBSD on a router and the other on Debian arm isc-dhcp-server on a > cubietruck. Training is almost always worth the effort as long as something is learned in the process. > One sends sync messages and the other connects to ip-ports - duh! > The philosophy of OpenBSD dhcp seems to be really wide area networks not being > on the same premises and isc-dhcp seems to be better fitted for LAN. > Now I know that my endeavours are futile. They were not futile. You learned something from them. Therefore the effort had good value. > The synchronization between two OpenBSD dhcp servers and the > failover isc-dhcp-server are essentially different and do not work > together. Either 2 * isc-dhcp-server (which is available for OpenBSD > as a package) or 2 * OpenBSD dhcp servers (which does not exist for > the armv7l cubietruck) => need another machine or "maquinita". Even better you shared your experience with the mailing list and allowed me to learn something too. I am completely unfamiliar with the OpenBSD dhcp daemon but now I know a little more about it. (I use the ISC dhcp software.) Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature