What does "not found" mean in a DHCPRELEASE context?
 

I have a CentOS 4.6 server running dhcpd. One of my client devices (a Panasonic KX-HCM280A camera) is trying to get a lease from that server. I can see the device accept a lease (it is a reservation), however it always releases the reservation after about 25 seconds:

Jul 10 10:30:49 stargate dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 00:80:f0:56:46:30 via eth0
Jul 10 10:30:49 stargate dhcpd: DHCPOFFER on 172.31.14.13 to 00:80:f0:56:46:30 via eth0
Jul 10 10:30:49 stargate dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 172.31.14.13 (172.31.0.1) from 00:80:f0:56:46:30 via eth0
Jul 10 10:30:49 stargate dhcpd: DHCPACK on 172.31.14.13 to 00:80:f0:56:46:30 via eth0
Jul 10 10:31:16 stargate dhcpd: DHCPRELEASE of 172.31.14.13 from 00:80:f0:56:46:30 via eth0 (not found)

If I remove the reservation and reset the camera, it does the same thing with a dynamic lease; however in that case the message is

Jul 3 09:48:05 stargate dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 00:80:f0:56:46:30 via eth0
Jul 3 09:48:06 stargate dhcpd: DHCPOFFER on 172.31.9.91 to 00:80:f0:56:46:30 via eth0
Jul 3 09:48:06 stargate dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 172.31.9.91 (172.31.0.1) from 00:80:f0:56:46:30 via eth0
Jul 3 09:48:06 stargate dhcpd: DHCPACK on 172.31.9.91 to 00:80:f0:56:46:30 via eth0
Jul 3 09:48:19 stargate dhcpd: DHCPRELEASE of 172.31.9.91 from 00:80:f0:56:46:30 via eth0 (found)

...ie "(found)" instead of "(not found)".

Does anyone know what dhcpd (or the device) is trying to tell me with this message?

The DHCPRELEASE (not found) message is easy enough to guess - there's no
entry in the leases file to release.
I'd double check the dhcpd config file if I were you.
Also, check your camera manufacturer's site to see if other users had the same problems.

Correct -- because the reservation is a reservation and (should be) outside of the dynamic scope, no lease is written when the client gets the networkinging information, so dhcpd is telling me that there was no lease found to release.

My underlying problem is clearly an individual camera problem; I have a half dozen same or similar models on the same network working correctly; I've also lost a camera to a similar problem in the last year. When last year's camera died, I threw it away thinking it was a one-off; the similar nature of this problem has me digging into it as it may be systemic, and there may be a solution to the problem.