On 10/24/2018 1:28 PM, tony wrote:
> On 24/10/2018 08:19, Reco wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 03:56:34PM +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
>>> The DHCP server is another Stretch system, with the stanzas
>>> host tony-lt {
>>> hardware ethernet 0c:60:76:6c:e6:6f;
>>> fixed-address 192.168.1.199;
>>> }
>>> subnet 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
>>> {
>>> range 192.168.1.200 192.168.1.254;
>>> option routers 192.168.1.10;
>>> }
>>>
>>> That MAC is correct for the laptop.
>>>
>>
>>> Finally, the server shows:
>>> Oct 23 14:23:38 routerpi dhcpd[1068]: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.1.253 from
>>> 0c:60:76:6c:e6:6f (tony-lt) via eth0
>>> Oct 23 14:23:38 routerpi dhcpd[1068]: DHCPACK on 192.168.1.253 to
>>> 0c:60:76:6c:e6:6f (tony-lt) via eth0
>>> Oct 23 14:23:53 routerpi dhcpd[1068]: reuse_lease: lease age 15 (secs)
>>> under 25% threshold, reply with unaltered, existing lease for 192.168.1.253
>>> Oct 23 14:23:53 routerpi dhcpd[1068]: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.1.253 from
>>> 0c:60:76:6c:e6:6f (tony-lt) via eth0
>>> Oct 23 14:23:53 routerpi dhcpd[1068]: DHCPACK on 192.168.1.253 to
>>> 0c:60:76:6c:e6:6f (tony-lt) via eth0
>>>
>>> So, my question: why is the server handing out .253, when it is
>>> configured to provide .199?
>>
>> Because client specifically asks for .253 address:
>>
>>> Oct 23 14:23:38 routerpi dhcpd[1068]: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.1.253 from
>>> 0c:60:76:6c:e6:6f (tony-lt) via eth0
>>
>
> Agree fully.
>
>> And, to quote dhcpd.conf:
>>
>> There may be a host declaration matching the client’s identification. If
>> that host declaration contains a fixed-address declaration that lists an
>> IP address that is valid for the network segment to which the client is
>> connected. In this case, the DHCP server will never do dynamic address
>> allocation. In this case, the client is required to take the address
>> specified in the host declaration. If the client sends a DHCPREQUEST for
>> some other address, the server will respond with a DHCPNAK.
>>
>
> Yes, agree again.
>
>> When the DHCP server allocates a new address for a client (remember,
>> this only happens if the client has sent a DHCPDISCOVER), it first looks
>> to see if the client already has a valid lease on an IP address, or if
>> there is an old IP address the client had before that hasn’t yet been
>> reassigned. In that case, the server will take that address and check it
>> to see if the client is still permitted to use it. If the client is no
>> longer permitted to use it, the lease is freed if the server thought it
>> was still in use - the fact that the client has sent a DHCPDISCOVER
>> proves to the server that the client is no longer using the lease.
>>>
>> You assume that a 'host' entry overrides any previous IP assignment.
>> It's not.
>>
>
> No, When a client issues a DHCPREQUEST which the server doesn't like,
> the server should issue a DHCPNAK, to which the client will respond with
> a DHCPDISCOVER. The server is not sending the NAK. This, I believe to be
> the crux of the matter. The 'host' assignment should cause the server to
> send a DHCPNAK.
>
>>
>>> What is this 'reuse-lease' all about?
>>
>> Your DHCP client renews the leased IP although the lease time is not
>> expired. Not relevant to this problem.
>>>
>>> I've tried 'dhclient -r wlan 0; dhclient -v wlan0' on the laptop, to no
>>> avail.
>>
>> I'd be really surprised if it did change something. Your DHCP server has
>> a problem, client does not.
>>
>
> I agree again, but when one gets desperate, one starts to grasp at straws.
>
>>
>>> Any suggestions, please?
>>
>> Clear your DHCP lease file on DHCP server. Bounce the thing. Check
>> again.
>>
>
> Yes, I've done that. No change I'm afraid.
>
By doing:
$ systemctl stop isc-dhcp-server
rm /var/lib/dhcpd/dhcpd.leases
$ systemctl start isc-dhcp-server
Make sure that the client is disconnected before doing the above.
--
John Doe