Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Kea DHCP HA "This server name" is overwritten on Opnsense HA update on slave #7436

Open
roboticsalign opened this issue May 3, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
support Community support

Comments

@roboticsalign
Copy link

Important notices

Before you add a new report, we ask you kindly to acknowledge the following:

Describe the bug

Opensense Version: OPNsense 24.1.6-amd64

New Kea DHCP comes with an HA-Option. A unique name must be given to identify master and slave. The name from the Opensense-Master is transferred to Opensense slave, when performing an status update. This setting should not be synchronized, because it breaks the HA-functionality of kea.

To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Setup two opensense instances with ha
  2. setup kea dhcp on both with ha and privide a unique server name to both servers
  3. sync opnsense settings via "system" -> "ha" -> "status"
  4. kea dhcp v4 -> "settings" -> "ha" -> "this server name" is synchronized
  5. kea ha stops to work.

Expected behavior

There sould be an option to exclude the sync of the unique server-name.

Describe alternatives you considered

A clear and concise description of any alternative solutions or workaround you considered.

Additional context

Add any other context about the problem here.

@AdSchellevis
Copy link
Member

as advertised, yes.
image

@AdSchellevis AdSchellevis added the support Community support label May 3, 2024
@roboticsalign
Copy link
Author

Thanks for your response. I can't see any desired behavior here :

First, a unique name must not be synchronized 1:1 according to the meaning of unique. That never makes sense.

Second, the advice says, that the name of this machine will be used. According to the behavior and the description, it should also be synchronized by mistake.

In any case, in my opinion, both the behavior and the description should be adapted.

@AdSchellevis
Copy link
Member

feel free to open a PR with suggestions, personally I believe the description is clear enough, but there's always room for improvements. Excluding sections from the HA sync or adding magic inside the sync is not planned and should not be needed either.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
support Community support
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants