Re: DCHP Server - Needs reconciling once a week (at least!)
From: Julio McTavish (juliomct_at_spammenot.org)
Date: 09/15/04
- Next message: vihrea: "Occasional DNS Resolution Failures"
- Previous message: David Yeu: "Scheduled Backups Failing"
- In reply to: John McLagan: "Re: DCHP Server - Needs reconciling once a week (at least!)"
- Next in thread: John McLagan: "Re: DCHP Server - Needs reconciling once a week (at least!)"
- Reply: John McLagan: "Re: DCHP Server - Needs reconciling once a week (at least!)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:34:53 -0400
Hi John,
I helps me a lot, at least I now know I'm not the only one with this problem
:)
>From MS: "Reconciling scopes can fix inconsistencies, such as incorrect or
missing information for client IP addresses that are stored in scope lease
information. When inconsistencies are found, the DHCP server can use
duplicate scope address lease information recorded in the Windows 2000
registry to detect any lease entries not currently reflected in the DHCP
server database."
So what Reconcile seems to do is compare the DHCP database entries to some
"backup" in the registry. I can't seem to find reference to which key it's
held in (by searching the web), so I'm going to start digging manually to
try and get a little more info on what's going on and what may be affecting
it.
As it stands though, it seems like the registry version is staying correct
and the DHCP database itself is where the problem is happening; I'm
concluding this because if the registry version is where the oddness was
happening I would think that the DHCP would work fine UNTIL it was
reconciled.
I'm wondering if you can post a line or two from your DHCP log after
performing the reconcile/delete of one/some of these entries, I'd like to
see what your "MAC addresses" look like when this happens. I think those
magic numbers may help lead us to an answer if we can decipher them.
Any info or ideas you've got, come up with, or have covered I'm all ears. :)
Julio
-- - "John McLagan" <JohnMcLagan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:27D1C25D-3BCF-499A-88D6-A615EAE296CF@microsoft.com... > Marina & Julio - > > I don't know if this helps or hinders. However, I currently have this same > problem as well. I have also found postings on other boards within microsoft > that other people are having the same problem as well. > > I currently do not have the loopback adapter listed as my secondary dns and > it still happens to me. I have a question about the WINS/NBT scope option. > I currently have 0x8 as a hybrid node type as well as Julio. Could this be > causing any of this? > > I even started a new dhcp database and things are worse now. I only have 1 > computer that uses dhcp, the rest are static (with the proper exclusions > applied). This one computer always go for an address in the 10.0.0.12x > range. With this building from the first available lease and going > sequentially upward, I am more apt to believe it is a service or other > property within the server itself requesting this address. > > Cheers, > > John > > "Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]" wrote: > > > Hi Julio, > > > > Just remove it, it is not needed. As SBS is your DNS server, every request > > for outside DNS will be handled by your DNS server. When running CEICW, it > > will ask for your ISP DNS-numbers. Those will be put in the tab Forwarders > > of your DNS-server. > > The DHCP-scope needs to have all existing IP's in it. So if your server has > > IP 10.0.0.50, your scope will have to be at least 10.0.0.1-10.0.0.50. You > > set exclusions for the static IP's. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Marina > > Microsoft SBS-MVP > > > > "Julio McTavish" <julio@nospam.net> schreef in bericht > > news:eMvkUwsmEHA.1716@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > > > The 127.0.0.1 DNS was entered as redundancy in case the IP address for the > > > server ever gets changed for some bizarre reason, is this not a good idea? > > > > > > I've seen quite a few websites saying not to set it to the loopback, but > > > they never explain WHY it shouldn't be used; and I've seen just as many > > > articles saying that it can be used (usually suggested as the exclusive > > > primary). > > > > > > Based on these contradictions and my own intuition it seemed like an > > > acceptable idea to add it as the secondary. If you can give me a reason > > to > > > remove it, I'll happily do it. :) > > > > > > Also how do you mean 'needs to be in the scope'? I don't want the server > > to > > > be dynamically allocated an IP address. > > > > > > Thanks again for the input. :) > > > > > > Julio > > > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > > > > "Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]" <marina@roos.nodontwantspam.nl.com> wrote in > > message > > > news:e2w89hrmEHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > > > Hi Julio, > > > > > > > > Delete the 127.0.0.1 address. > > > > > > > > Also, the 10.0.0.50 needs to be in the scope of DHCP server. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Marina > > > > Microsoft SBS-MVP > > > > > > > > "Julio McTavish" <julio@nospam.net> schreef in bericht > > > > news:%237T9uermEHA.1644@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > > > >> Sure thing. > > > >> --------------------- > > > >> > > > >> Windows 2000 IP Configuration > > > >> Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : blarneyprime > > > >> Primary DNS Suffix . . . . . . . : blarney.local > > > >> Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid > > > >> IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No > > > >> WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No > > > >> DNS Suffix Search List. . . . . . : blarney.local > > > >> > > > >> Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection: > > > >> Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : > > > >> Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Intel 8255x-based PCI > > > >> Ethernet > > > >> Adapter (10/100) > > > >> Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-02-B3-XX-XX-XX > > > >> DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No > > > >> IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.0.0.50 > > > >> Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 > > > >> Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 10.0.0.200 > > > >> DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.0.0.50 > > > >> 127.0.0.1 > > > >> Primary WINS Server . . . . . . . : 10.0.0.50 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I X'd the MAC, and the names have been changed to protect the network. > > ;) > > > >> > > > >> ---------------------------- > > > >> > > > >> "Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]" <marina@roos.nodontwantspam.nl.com> wrote in > > > > message > > > >> news:O6ID$VqmEHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > > >> Hi Julio, > > > >> > > > >> Can you post the ipconfig/all from the server please? > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Regards, > > > >> > > > >> Marina > > > >> Microsoft SBS-MVP > > > >> > > > >> "Julio McTavish" <juliomct@spammenot.org> schreef in bericht > > > >> news:ed0Qq3pmEHA.1692@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > > >> The disabled, second NIC is hard-set outside of the scope as well. > > > >> > > > >> 40 available addresses is at least 10 more addresses then I have > > > >> clients > > > >> (including what's set aside for RAS on the terminal server). I can't > > > > think > > > >> of any reason to expand the scope, and I don't think expanding it would > > > >> do > > > >> anything for me other than make it a little longer until it eats them > > all > > > >> up, unless I'm missing something? > > > >> > > > >> It seems to be eating two or three addresses per day. > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> - > > > >> "CRIS HANNA (SBS-MVP)" <crishannanospam@computingpossibilities.net> > > > >> wrote in message news:ezA0bopmEHA.704@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > > >> is the "disabled" one also in the ten range > > > >> Have you considered expanding the range > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Cris Hanna (SBS-MVP) > > > >> _____________________ > > > >> Please only respond in the Newsgroup and not directly to me, so > > that > > > >> everyone can share the information > > > >> "Julio McTavish" <juliomct@spammenot.org> wrote in message > > > >> news:uwIwAYpmEHA.1692@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > > >> Thanks for the responce. > > > >> > > > >> First, sorry, I didn't forsee a problem with a minor crosspost to > > > > two > > > >> applicable groups. > > > >> > > > >> Second, there are two, the second one is disabled. > > > >> > > > >> The scope is 10.0.0.1-10.0.0.49 with 10.0.0.1-10.0.0.9 excluded > > > >> from > > > >> being > > > >> handed out (exclusions not reservations). > > > >> > > > >> The servers are all hard-set outside of scope. > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> - > > > >> "CRIS HANNA (SBS-MVP)" > > <crishannanospam@computingpossibilities.net> > > > >> wrote in > > > >> message news:OPevnAnmEHA.4064@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > > > >> first, please do not cross post > > > >> second, how many nics in your server > > > >> What ranges are setup in your DHCP > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Cris Hanna (SBS-MVP) > > > >> _____________________ > > > >> Please only respond in the Newsgroup and not directly to me, so > > > >> that > > > >> everyone can share the information > > > >> "Julio McTavish" <julio@nospam.net> wrote in message > > > >> news:OlHiiugmEHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> I have a Win2K SBS server setup, and it's the DHCP server for the > > > >> domain > > > >> with only one scope defined. > > > >> > > > >> All works fine except one problem; approximately once a week I > > need > > > > to > > > >> reconcile the DHCP scope to free up addresses. Once I do this > > and > > > >> refresh > > > >> the list I get several leases showing up with the 'Client IP > > > > Address' > > > >> and > > > >> 'Name' listed as the same thing (Ie: the "Name" is 10.0.0.X). > > > >> > > > >> I then have to manually highlight them all and delete them to get > > > > some > > > >> addresses back for the pool. > > > >> > > > >> I used to have it set to 72 hour lease lengths, then lowered it > > to > > > >> 1 > > > >> day, > > > >> then to 2 hours (tested for weeks at each setting). It doesn't > > > >> seem > > > >> to make > > > >> any difference (I changed it back to 72 hours). > > > >> > > > >> The 'host name' in the log is blank? And the 'MAC Address' isn't > > a > > > >> MAC > > > >> address it's some unknown (to me)number. > > > >> > > > >> Here's a few lines from the log: > > > >> > > > >> 16,09/13/04,13:54:07,Deleted,10.0.0.10,,31302E302E302E313000 > > > >> 16,09/13/04,13:54:07,Deleted,10.0.0.11,,31302E302E302E313100 > > > >> 16,09/13/04,13:54:07,Deleted,10.0.0.12,,31302E302E302E313200 > > > >> 16,09/13/04,13:54:07,Deleted,10.0.0.13,,31302E302E302E313300 > > > >> 16,09/13/04,13:54:07,Deleted,10.0.0.14,,31302E302E302E313400 > > > >> ... > > > >> 16,09/13/04,13:54:14,Deleted,10.0.0.36,,31302E302E302E333600 > > > >> 16,09/13/04,13:54:14,Deleted,10.0.0.37,,31302E302E302E333700 > > > >> 16,09/13/04,13:54:15,Deleted,10.0.0.38,,31302E302E302E333800 > > > >> 16,09/13/04,13:54:15,Deleted,10.0.0.40,,31302E302E302E343000 > > > >> 16,09/13/04,13:54:15,Deleted,10.0.0.45,,2D00000A > > > >> > > > >> Usually they get the long "MAC" addresses, but that last one (in > > > > this > > > >> case) > > > >> is extra strange in that it's different again. > > > >> > > > >> The addresses seem somewhat related to the chunk that's given out > > > >> to > > > >> our > > > >> Terminal Server (A seperate Win2K Server machine) for remote > > > > clients, > > > >> but > > > >> only seem related because after freeing them, some of them are > > > >> reassigned to > > > >> the TS: > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > 10,09/13/04,13:54:19,Assign,10.0.0.10,blarneyts,5241532000E018C109B900000200 > > > >> 0000 > > > >> > > > > > > 10,09/13/04,13:54:23,Assign,10.0.0.11,blarneyts,5241532000E018C109B900000300 > > > >> 0000 > > > >> > > > > > > 10,09/13/04,13:54:28,Assign,10.0.0.12,blarneyts,5241532000E018C109B900000400 > > > >> 0000 > > > >> > > > > > > 10,09/13/04,13:54:32,Assign,10.0.0.13,blarneyts,5241532000E018C109B900000500 > > > >> 0000 > > > >> > > > > > > 10,09/13/04,13:54:37,Assign,10.0.0.14,blarneyts,5241532000E018C109B900000600 > > > >> 0000 > > > >> > > > >> ANY ideas? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks in advance. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Next message: vihrea: "Occasional DNS Resolution Failures"
- Previous message: David Yeu: "Scheduled Backups Failing"
- In reply to: John McLagan: "Re: DCHP Server - Needs reconciling once a week (at least!)"
- Next in thread: John McLagan: "Re: DCHP Server - Needs reconciling once a week (at least!)"
- Reply: John McLagan: "Re: DCHP Server - Needs reconciling once a week (at least!)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
