1

I have a dhcpv6 server configured on ubuntu. i has static bindings defined for each client based on interface ID. But when a client solicits, the allocation fails on the DHCPv6 server. "dhcpd[122762]: send_packet6: Bad file descriptor"

----Config on dhcpv6 server----

subnet6 2404:e801:1014::/48 {
    host client-name-2404.e801.1014.5 {
        host-identifier option dhcp6.interface-id "OLT3923.IOT xpon 0/2/0/1:2404:e801:1014::5";
        fixed-address6 2404:e801:1014::5;
        fixed-prefix6 b1a1:3003:1014:5::/64;
    }

----syslog message----

dhcpd[122762]: Relay-forward message from 2406:3003:1:5a::1 port 547, link address 2404:e801:1014::1, peer address fe80::244:1ff:fe00:1
dhcpd[122762]: Advertise NA: address 2404:e801:1014::5 to client with duid 00:01:00:01:26:69:f0:4b:00:44:01:00:00:01 iaid = 1 static
dhcpd[122762]: Advertise PD: address b1a1:3003:1014:5::/64 to client with duid 00:01:00:01:26:69:f0:4b:00:44:01:00:00:01 iaid = 2 static
dhcpd[122762]: Sending Relay-reply to 2406:3003:1:5a::1 port 547
dhcpd[122762]: send_packet6: Bad file descriptor
dhcpd[122762]: dhcpv6: send_packet6() sent -1 of 177 bytes
dhcpd[122762]: Relay-forward message from 2406:3003:1:5a::1 port 547, link address 2404:e801:1014::1, peer address fe80::244:1ff:fe00:1
dhcpd[122762]: Advertise NA: address 2404:e801:1014::5 to client with duid 00:01:00:01:26:69:f0:4b:00:44:01:00:00:01 iaid = 1 static
dhcpd[122762]: Advertise PD: address b1a1:3003:1014:5::/64 to client with duid 00:01:00:01:26:69:f0:4b:00:44:01:00:00:01 iaid = 2 static
dhcpd[122762]: Sending Relay-reply to 2406:3003:1:5a::1 port 547
dhcpd[122762]: send_packet6: Bad file descriptor
dhcpd[122762]: dhcpv6: send_packet6() sent -1 of 177 bytes


lsb_release -a
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description:    Ubuntu 19.10
Release:        19.10
Codename:       eoan
Vadim Kotov
  • 8,084
  • 8
  • 48
  • 62
nitin
  • 11
  • 2

1 Answers1

0

the interface used for dhcpv6 server had sub-interfaces too which was being used for some other function.

After the sub-interfaces were deleted, the allocation was successful.

This looks like a limitation/bug, but couldn't find any documentation.

nitin
  • 11
  • 2