DHCPD dying..

[Matthew Carpenter]

Thanks a lot, Aaron.  This makes sense and is what I just read in the 
man page for dhcpd.conf.
Is this a relatively new requirement?  Or have I just been that out of 
it all these years?

More importantly to me, I'd like to know for sure that is why the daemon 
is dying.  The man page simply indicates that the server will not send 
the DHCPNAK's, however it said nothing about taking a suicide pill or 
anything.  Also, do you think the "authoritative" messages could simply 
be because the range 192.168.1.0/24 is the default for so many 
home-networks?  Is this indeed the existence of another DHCP server?  or 
could this simply be indicating that they have previously received a 
DHCP lease from *another* 192.168.1.1 and their DHCPREQUEST message is 
coming to the BigBlock since it lives at the same address?  Kinda like 
me getting mail at my house for Andrew Carpenter (actually has happened 
quite often)?

Thanks again,
Matt

Aaron Grewell wrote:

>
>What you're seeing in the logs is a combination of 2 things.
>1) There's another DHCP server running on your subnet.  Since DHCP is
>broadcast-based that's a bad thing.  I'd recommend waiting 'til after hours,
>dropping the official DHCP server, and then doing a release-renew on a
>client.  On a Windows-based client, 'ipconfig /all' will tell you all about
>your configuration, including the IP address of the DHCP server that gave
>the client its IP.  There are other ways to find an unauthorized DHCP
>server, but that's probably the quickest.  You'll probably find that some
>doofus either set up a server 'for test reasons' or (even more likely)
>installed their own WAP or other hardware device that has its own DHCP
>server.
>
>2) You haven't defined your DHCP server as 'Authoritative' for the subnets
>it serves.  That means that while it will hand out DHCP addresses, it will
>not send out 'DHCPNAK' packets to clients whose requests conflict.  If this
>is your official DHCP server, you need to set it as Authoritative for the
>subnets it serves.  Don't do it until you've tracked down your unauthorized
>server, however, or you'll hose a bunch of your clients.  They'll get those
>'DHCPNAK' packets and then they won't get IP's.  All this is explained much
>more fully in 'The DHCP Handbook' which I highly recommend if you're going
>to spend much time with ISC DHCP.
>
>HTH,
>-Aaron
>_______________________________________________
>Linux-users mailing list
>Linux-users at linux-sxs.org
>http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
>
>Need to chat further on this subject? Check out #linux-users on irc.linux-sxs.org !
>
>
>
>  
>