UDHCPC: Received DHCP NAK



  • Hi there,

    New to installing FOG however I’ve had FOG servers in my network from previous people having set them up. I have 5 buildings and 6 different pools of addresses that I used to work FOG with for pulling/pushing images. I’ve added options 66 & 67 to my DHCP server in order to get FOG to boot which works no problem but when I PXE boot a device i get an infinite loop of sending discover, sending select for (IP address in my server pool of IP’s not where this device is) and an inevitable received DHCP NAK.

    Is this something within FOG that I would have to configure to keep my computers from trying to pull IP’s from my server network where FOG is located but rather keep the one that pertains to the subnet they belong on? Further information: FOG is running through a VM on a Hyper-V network on a shared cluster of storage and a NIC team with other servers. The server runs on a .32 network and the one network I’m testing is a .224 network.


  • Moderator

    I’m having a hard time imagining it working as you say that it is. DHCP isn’t supposed to work that way.

    From your description its not clear where its failing. Do you see the iPXE menu but when you select registration or such that is where you are seeing the attemp and the NAK?

    I clear picture taking with a mobile phone would help set the context.

    The target computer should only pull a dhcp address from the current subnet. There is no way that I know (outside dhcp reservations) to get an IP address outside of where the client is currently located.

    If the client is being told something unexpected we can use wireshark with the capture filter of port 67 or port 68 to only capture the dhcp traffic. That wireshark computer only needs to be on the same subnet as the pxe booting computer to capture the traffic. I sure would like to see that pcap to better understand what the target computer is doing. You can either upload the pcap here, or upload it to a file share site and IM me the link and I will take a look at it. Please don’t mask out IP addresses because it makes it much harder to see who the actors are.


Log in to reply
 

325
Online

7.4k
Users

14.5k
Topics

136.6k
Posts