http://isc-dhcp-users.193.s1.nabble.com/Inconsistent-renews-from-F-O-peers-tp94p98.html
> On May 11, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Shawn Routhier <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On May 11, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Simon Hobson <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Mark Sandrock <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> it sometimes happens that shortly
>>> after obtaining an initial lease of MCLT,
>>> (3600 seconds), some Windows clients
>>> send a broadcast renew request that
>>> is responded to differently by the two
>>> failover peers.
>>
>>> Although this seems incorrect behavior
>>> on the switch'es part, the pathological
>>> behavior of Windows renewing a lease
>>> only 3 seconds into it, also seems wrong.
>>
>> When this happens, do you have any indication how long it took to get the reply back to the client ?
>> I'm wondering if a combination of factors (delay by the server, delay by the switch (I assume that the DHCP packets are being handled by the management CPU)) are leading to a delay at the client which is long enough for it to retry - hence the second renew after 3 seconds.
>>
>> You may need to leave a packet capture running until you capture an event. IIRC there is a field (who's name escapes me at the moment) in the packet which indicates how long the client has been trying - if the first packet has 0 and the second has 3, then this would seem to support the hypothesis.
>
> It is the “secs” field.
>
> **
>
> Another item to check is if dhcp-cache-threshold is enabled on both servers.
> This is a feature to limit the number of times the servers touch the lease file.
> If a client requests a renew early instead of handing out a full lease the server
> simply hands out the previous lease again, correcting the lease time it sends
> as necessary. So when renewing a lease of 3600 seconds 3 seconds after
> it was handed out the server would hand out a time period of 3597 seconds.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users