You are correct.
At 50% of the lease time the DHCP client attempts to renew its lease from
the DHCP server that it leased the address from via unicast. If this is not
successful the DHCP client waits until 87.5% of the lease time has expired
and then re-attempts to renew it address, again via unicast to the DHCP
server. If this is unsuccessful the client attempts to obtain a new lease
from any DHCP server via the standard broadcast method (DHCP DISCOVER). If
no DHCP server responds the client falls back (assuming XP) to the alternate
configuration, which is APIPA by default.
"Hugh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:FD888088-3673-48A9-8E02-(E-Mail Removed)...
> We want to make sure we fully understand the impact to DHCP clients
> whenever
> we have a DHCP server outage. After doing to testing a tracing, it seems
> the
> breaking point for a DHCP client (at least in our environment) is
> controlled
> by the value of the Rebinding Time Value parameter in the DHCP Offer
> packet.
>
> If my testing was accurate, DHCP clients (Win XP SP2 clients,
> specifically)
> will continue to use their previously obtained IP address until they reach
> the value of the Rebinding Time Value (which is set automatically to 87.5%
> of
> the lease value). So at 50% of the lease time (set to 14 days in our
> environment), the client passes the renewal threshold. However, in my
> testing, the client still used its IP address. However, once I reached
> the
> Rebinding Time Value, the client would send DHCP Discover packets and,
> when
> no response was received from a DHCP server, the client would then revert
> to
> an APIPA address.
>
> The conclusion from our testing is that DHCP clients must meet two
> criteria
> before they will fail to obtain (or use an existing) IP address:
>
> First, prior to or during the failure, the DHCP client exceeds its
> Rebinding
> Time Value.
> Second, during the failure (and after exceeding the Rebinding Time Value),
> the DHCP client is restarted.
>
> So my question is simple: Are our conclusions correct? Thanks.
> --
> Hugh
|