Mystical dhcp-related problem

So the working scenario had one FreeBSD server sharing content via samba and delivering ip’s with dhcpd. In this case my WD TV Lives found the server from “Windows shares” and everything worked like a charm.

Then I added another server to my LAN running pfSense and giving out ip’s. From this point on my WD TV Lives no more found the content server but two Win7 machines in LAN.

What is the problem in this scenario? Why won’t WD TV Live see the FreeBSD samba shares if not getting ip from the same server?


You should NEVER have two DHCP servers on the same network unless the scopes are independently controlled via DHCP option codes or MAC tables.

That’s obvious. Unfortunately this didn’t come up in my original post.

Only one dhcpd in LAN at all times, ie. I shut down dhcpd on FreeBSD server as I deployd pfSense.

just a guess, maybe a problem with master-browser

FreeBSD is probably the master-browser

when it’s shutdown, some other device becomes the master-browser

when pfsense comes up, there’s another re-election, etc …

I’m thinking likewise here but the FreeBSD server itself was never shut down, only dhcpd running on it.

changing the dhcp server should also trigger re-election of master-browser

at least in theory, even if the same IP address is given out

the old IP address from the shutdown dhcp server is no longer valid

and a new IP must be assigned (even if it ends up being the same IP, it’s a new IP assignment)

this should trigger master-browser re-election

This could be just wild goose chase but… does the server assigning ip addresses have some kind of advantage in the master-browser election?

I know basicly the master-browser election mechanism but clearly not thoroughly enough :slight_smile:

Okay I guess I should have done this right in the beginning… FWIW I tuned a few samba configuration variables as follows:

local master = yes

os level = 100

preferred master = yes

Got to test this configuration in the evening.

Juggimo wrote:

does the server assigning ip addresses have some kind of advantage in the master-browser election?

No, not at all.   The two processes aren’t even aware of each other, and the fact that one server might also be a DHCP server isn’t factored into the Master Browser election criteria.

Browser Election is a nasty business.   If I recall correctly, if the master disappears, it can take up to 30-40 minutes for a new election to be initiated.

yeah, Tony knows this much better than I do,

but my thought is when the dhcp server goes down

whatever IP address the any machine on the network has basically becomes invalid

the whole network basically goes down

then when the new dhcp server is started, every device on the network must acquire a new lease

many of these may end up being the same IP address, but new lease on the address

unless of coarse eveything is configured static, so as to not ever use the dhcp server