Dueling DHCP servers: How to win

Background: The company I work for has been acquired buy a Windows
Shop. Our office will become a "remote office" with all new networking
equipment. We will be permitted to maintain our existing "development
infrastructure", which I define as "whatever I like".

They will be providing a dhcp service from a remote server via proxyarp
through a Cisco switch/router. I would like to use my own dhcp server
(for lots of reasons). Is there any clever way to make it so that my
dhcp server will always be the one to answer? Putting any kind of
firewall in front of their router will not be an option. I'd also
prefer not to make any changes to the clients.

In comp.os.linux.networking (E-Mail Removed):
> Background: The company I work for has been acquired buy a Windows
> Shop. Our office will become a "remote office" with all new networking

My condolences.

> equipment. We will be permitted to maintain our existing "development
> infrastructure", which I define as "whatever I like".

> They will be providing a dhcp service from a remote server via proxyarp
> through a Cisco switch/router. I would like to use my own dhcp server
> (for lots of reasons). Is there any clever way to make it so that my

IIRC not, doze dhcp doesn't allow to run in ha/failover mode like
isc dhcp allows in addition to other limits. Perhaps just setup
your own IP range put the clients behind and simply NAT the
clients through the Linux(dhcp) server to the company LAN?

[..]

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo (E-Mail Removed) | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 215: High nuclear activity in your area.

Michael Heiming wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.networking (E-Mail Removed):
> > Background: The company I work for has been acquired buy a Windows
> > Shop. Our office will become a "remote office" with all new networking
>
> My condolences.
>
> > equipment. We will be permitted to maintain our existing "development
> > infrastructure", which I define as "whatever I like".
>
> > They will be providing a dhcp service from a remote server via proxyarp
> > through a Cisco switch/router. I would like to use my own dhcp server
> > (for lots of reasons). Is there any clever way to make it so that my
>
> IIRC not, doze dhcp doesn't allow to run in ha/failover mode like
> isc dhcp allows in addition to other limits. Perhaps just setup
> your own IP range put the clients behind and simply NAT the
> clients through the Linux(dhcp) server to the company LAN?

Unfortunately, that's not an option either.

>
> [..]
>
> --
> Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
> mail: echo (E-Mail Removed) | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
> #bofh excuse 215: High nuclear activity in your area.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Michael Heiming wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.networking (E-Mail Removed):
>> > Background: The company I work for has been acquired buy a Windows
>> > Shop. Our office will become a "remote office" with all new
>> > networking
>>
>> My condolences.
>>
>> > equipment. We will be permitted to maintain our existing
>> > "development infrastructure", which I define as "whatever I like".
>>
>> > They will be providing a dhcp service from a remote server via
>> > proxyarp through a Cisco switch/router. I would like to use my own
>> > dhcp server (for lots of reasons). Is there any clever way to make
>> > it so that my
>>
>> IIRC not, doze dhcp doesn't allow to run in ha/failover mode like
>> isc dhcp allows in addition to other limits. Perhaps just setup
>> your own IP range put the clients behind and simply NAT the
>> clients through the Linux(dhcp) server to the company LAN?
>
> Unfortunately, that's not an option either.
>
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> --
>> Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
>> mail: echo (E-Mail Removed) | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
>> #bofh excuse 215: High nuclear activity in your area.


Would you please give us some more information as to why a NAT router is
not an option.

Clive

In comp.os.linux.networking Clive Dove <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>> Michael Heiming wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.networking (E-Mail Removed):
>>> > Background: The company I work for has been acquired buy a Windows
>>> > Shop. Our office will become a "remote office" with all new
>>> > networking
[..]

>>> > They will be providing a dhcp service from a remote server via
>>> > proxyarp through a Cisco switch/router. I would like to use my own
>>> > dhcp server (for lots of reasons). Is there any clever way to make
>>> > it so that my
>>>
>>> IIRC not, doze dhcp doesn't allow to run in ha/failover mode like
>>> isc dhcp allows in addition to other limits. Perhaps just setup
>>> your own IP range put the clients behind and simply NAT the
>>> clients through the Linux(dhcp) server to the company LAN?
>>
>> Unfortunately, that's not an option either.

> Would you please give us some more information as to why a NAT router is
> not an option.

Would be interesting.

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo (E-Mail Removed) | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 272: Netscape has crashed

Clive Dove wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> > Michael Heiming wrote:
> >> In comp.os.linux.networking (E-Mail Removed):
> >> > Background: The company I work for has been acquired buy a Windows
> >> > Shop. Our office will become a "remote office" with all new
> >> > networking
> >>
> >> My condolences.
> >>
> >> > equipment. We will be permitted to maintain our existing
> >> > "development infrastructure", which I define as "whatever I like".
> >>
> >> > They will be providing a dhcp service from a remote server via
> >> > proxyarp through a Cisco switch/router. I would like to use my own
> >> > dhcp server (for lots of reasons). Is there any clever way to make
> >> > it so that my
> >>
> >> IIRC not, doze dhcp doesn't allow to run in ha/failover mode like
> >> isc dhcp allows in addition to other limits. Perhaps just setup
> >> your own IP range put the clients behind and simply NAT the
> >> clients through the Linux(dhcp) server to the company LAN?
> >
> > Unfortunately, that's not an option either.
> >
> >>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
> >> mail: echo (E-Mail Removed) | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
> >> #bofh excuse 215: High nuclear activity in your area.
>
>
> Would you please give us some more information as to why a NAT router is
> not an option.

I won't have access to the switch or any other network equipment.
Everything owned by "corporate IS" will be caged off. I'll only have a
punch panel with a bunch of RJ45 ports. I could pick one of those and
make myself a separate network behind theirs, but that would be a
little too conspicuous. If they only see traffic coming from one IP
address they'll know something's up. If the get no DHCP leases, they'll
just assume I gave static IPs to all the engineers.

>
> Clive