[dhcpd] BOOTP from dynamic client and no dynamic leases

Andrew Falanga af300wsm at gmail.com
Fri Aug 8 15:02:03 UTC 2008


If I had hair I'd be pulling it out now.  I cannot find adequate help
anywhere as yet for this issue.  I've installed the ISC dhcpd program
from ports and am struggling to get it setup properly.  As I mentioned
in my other e-mail, I cannot share the contents of my configuration
file.  I'm sorry, I really wished I could.  What I have is this
(censored for host names and IP addresses):

not authoritative;
ddns-update-style none;
deny unknown-clients;
allow bootp;
use-host-decl-names on;

subnet netmask {
        # this server will only host bootp, thus the range is left out
	default-lease-time 6000;
	max-lease-time 6000;
	option subnet-mask;
	option broadcast-address 192.168..31.255;
	option routers;
	option domain-name-servers;
	option domain-name "internal.domain";

host host1 {
        option host-name "host1";
        hardware ethernet 00:01:a2:4a:cc:af;

That's all of the globals in use by this server and a single host
entry (there are 44 hosts using the range
 I do not know what is causing my problem.  The dhcpd server starts so
I know there are no syntactic problems with my configuration file, but
it's not answering requests for IP addresses.  When I start the
server, dhcpd -d, I get many lines with the test, "BOOTP from dynamic
client and no dynamic leases."  Also, because of how things are
configured for the subnet I'm on, I cannot allow this server to
respond to other DHCP requests.  It can only service the small range
of 44 that I've been allocated.

The clients use bootp for this and although they are not booting
anything from this server, or any other, bootp is used.  Whether or
not this is a good, or proper use, of bootp I know not.  I didn't set
it up, but it is what I have to use.  Can anyone here offer me any
ideas about what the problem might be?

>From looking through the dhcpd.conf file I've found a configuration
option for pool clauses that's something like this:

lease limit N;

but I don't think this is what I'm looking for.  First off, it seems
to only apply to pools and I'm not using any pools.  Secondly, it
would only help if the assumption is correct that without this
statement the server defaults to a lease limit of 0.  This, I don't
believe, is the case from what I've read in this man page.

Any help is greatly appreciated thanks,

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list