Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[BUG]fmDHCP peer declaration #421

Closed
cm91 opened this issue Nov 30, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

[BUG]fmDHCP peer declaration #421

cm91 opened this issue Nov 30, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@cm91
Copy link

@cm91 cm91 commented Nov 30, 2018

Please prefix your issue title with one of the following: [BUG], [ISSUE], [FEATURE REQUEST], [MODULE REQUEST], [OTHER].

Replace everything between stars with current version of your facileManager and module installations:
fM Version : 3.2
{fmDHCP} Version : 0.2

(BUG | ISSUE) Expected Behavior:

Declaring a peer is not working in the correct way

A peer in isc-dhcp should look like this:

failover peer "dhcp-failover" {
primary; # declare this to be the primary server
address ip-of-primary;
port 647;
peer address ip-of-secondary;
peer port 647;
max-response-delay 30;
max-unacked-updates 10;
load balance max seconds 3;
mclt 1800;
split 128;
}

(BUG | ISSUE) Actual Behavior:
in fmDHCP it looks like this:

failover peer "dhcp-failover" {
primary; # declare this to be the primary server
address fqdn-primary;
port 647;
peer-address fqdn-secondary;
peer-port 647;
max-response-delay 30;
max-unacked-updates 10;
load balance max secs 3;
mclt 1800;
split 128;
}

isc-dhcp fails when there is a "-" between peer address and peer port statement.
Also the load balance max secs should be load balance max seconds

@WillyXJ
Copy link
Owner

@WillyXJ WillyXJ commented Dec 15, 2018

This is now fixed in fmDHCP 0.3 and later.

@WillyXJ WillyXJ closed this Dec 15, 2018
@cm91
Copy link
Author

@cm91 cm91 commented Dec 15, 2018

Unfortunately the "load balance max secs" is also included in fmDHCP 0.3. It should be "load balance max seconds".

@cm91 cm91 mentioned this issue Dec 16, 2018
5 of 5 tasks complete
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants