which attachment do you mean Harald? ;-)

Created attachment 846192 [details]
attachment

only god knows where the attachemnt i selected in the initial report went..

Thanks. I think the client's behaviour is correct but something else seems to be wrongly configured.

I found a nice picture [1] describing the situation.
Your dhclient is in RENEWING state and keeps sending *unicast* DHCPREQUESTs directly to dhcp server.
Problem here is the server either doesn't get them or ignore them.
Once the T2 time expires, dhclient gets into REBINDING state, sends the DHCPREQUEST by *broadcast* and gets response.
The situation repeats once it again gets into RENEWING.

Harald, do you have any idea why the server doesn't get or ignore the unicast messages ? Perhaps some routing problem ?

[1] http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_DHCPLeaseRenewalandRebindingProcesses-2.htm

I had similar issue, it was caused by bad naming of device (device was identified by MAC address). You showed ifcfg-eth0 but in log is DHCPREQUEST on eth1.

> I had similar issue, it was caused by bad naming of device 
> (device was identified by MAC address)

i don't understand that - by what else?

> You showed ifcfg-eth0 but in log is DHCPREQUEST on eth1

because these are different machines and that is the main reason i wrote the bugreport - it affects *any* machine get address with DHCP from a cable rpivider (UPC/Chello) and basically all configured the same way



[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat ifcfg-eth1
###########################
#      WAN (Chello)       #
###########################
DEVICE=eth1
HWADDR=68:05:ca:0d:62:c1
ONBOOT=yes
BOOTPROTO=dhcp
IPV6INIT=no
NM_CONTROLLED=no
USERCTL=no
PEERDNS=no
MACADDR=00:50:8d:b5:cc:de

HWADDR = physical address
MACADDR = address after init because that one is registered by ISP
_____________________________

however, i see that flood also on a VM with only HWADDR used and eth0

[root@testserver:~]$ cat ifcfg-eth0
DEVICE=eth0
HWADDR=00:0c:29:76:12:e9
ONBOOT=yes
BOOTPROTO=dhcp
IPV6INIT=no
NM_CONTROLLED=no
USERCTL=no
PEERDNS=no

This message is a reminder that Fedora 20 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 20. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version'
of '20'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 20 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Fedora 20 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-06-23. Fedora 20 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.