Bug 62949

Summary: dhcp lease infinite
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Public Beta Reporter: Thomas M Steenholdt <tmus>
Component: dhcpcdAssignee: Elliot Lee <sopwith>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: skipjack-beta2   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2002-04-08 10:48:53 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Thomas M Steenholdt 2002-04-08 10:48:49 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020311

Description of problem:
for some reason, using dhcp configuration results in an infinite lease on my
dhcp server(RH7.2 i586). I'm not sure whether this is a client or server
problem. default-lease-time and max-lease-time options have been set. With a
RH7.2 client this would also happen, but it seemed that setting the
DHCP_HOSTNAME in ifcfg-eth0 made the lease more correct. This does not seem to
be the case on skipjack. Windows clients result in correct leases on the server.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Enable DHCP on an interface
2. Restart networking

	

Actual Results:  on the server, examining the /var/lib/dhcp/dhcp.leases, the new
entry for the test-client shows an end time 1 second before the start time

Expected Results:  on the server, examining the /var/lib/dhcp/dhcp.leases, the
new entry for the test-client should show an end time <default-lease-time> after
start time.

Additional info:

As noted above I'm not entirely sure where the problem lies. This could easily
be a server problem or maybe even a configuration problem - But nothing I've
tried has made it go away for good!

Comment 1 Thomas M Steenholdt 2002-04-08 11:33:48 UTC
Marked as a duplicate of 62948



*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 62948 ***