TFTP open timeout talking to dual interface DHCP Server
Linux - NetworkingThis forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
TFTP open timeout talking to dual interface DHCP Server
Hi,
I have a Virtual host which runs my DHCP service. When running with one iface it worked fine, we recently added a new subnet range and I can't seem to get that working.
When I start up my new host to be built, I would expect communication to initially go through eth0 (primary iface) but then pass onto eth1 when it has its IP from dhcp, but the TFTP fails to load pxelinux.0. I couldn't cut and paste from console so I've attached a screenshot in jpg.
To muddy the waters even more (for me at least), I tried using tcpdump to look at what was going on:
tcpdump -i eth0 host 10.2.250.29
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
16:33:37.401486 arp who-has 10.2.250.70 tell 10.2.250.29
16:33:37.452107 arp reply 10.2.250.70 is-at 00:50:56:92:69:86
16:33:37.401707 IP 10.2.250.29.2070 > 10.2.250.70.tftp: 42 RRQ "/linux-install/pxelinux.0" octet tsize 0
16:33:38.073953 IP 10.2.250.29.2071 > 10.2.250.70.tftp: 42 RRQ "/linux-install/pxelinux.0" octet tsize 0
Questions:
Why does TFTP fail to continue booting?
Why does my tcpdump output say 'arp reply 10.2.250.70 is-at 00:50:56:92:69:86' when its not, this MAC is eth0's mac, not eth1's.
Thanks for the response, I'm a little confused. If the netmask is 255.255.254.0 that makes it a /23 subnet covering (in my case) 10.2.250.0 to 10.2.251.254. My other iface is on 10.2.254.70 on a /24 subnet.
If I'm using the wrong netmask, then what would it be for a /23 subnet?
I guess I need a picture of your network setup.
1. Are both eth0 and eth1 connected to the same switch?
2. Are the PXE boot machines connected to the same switch as eth0 and eth1?
3. Are you using a router instead of a switch?
4. What is the output of "route -n" on the machine with eth0 and eth1?
Also, I find this statement to be very strange:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart_cherrington
When I start up my new host to be built, I would expect communication to initially go through eth0 (primary iface) but then pass onto eth1 when it has its IP from dhcp, but the TFTP fails to load pxelinux.0. I couldn't cut and paste from console so I've attached a screenshot in jpg.
What is "it" in the phrase "when it has its IP from dhcp"?
From your original post, it appears that ARP resolution is not doing the expected thing. The output of "route -n" will be interesting. Also, if you have any esoteric entries in iptables, that will be interesting to look at. If you are using a router instead of a switch, it will be interesting to know how the router is configured.
Thanks for your help so far. As with all things corporate I had to move fast so decided to remove the 10.2.254 subnet out of the equation. The basis behind the setup was to allow our 10.2.254 subnet to be replaced by the 10.2.250 subnet whilst still offering the ability for both subnets to DHCP boot and kickstart. As it was getting overly complicated to implement, I've decided to drop 10.2.254.
Having reconfigured eth0 to use 10.2.250 subnet, (and after extensive changes to the VMware VLAN setup) I've got a client to boot.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.