2) nailgun should not assume the node IP is set in the stone
It should not. If IP is not updated in db then this is a bug which we need to fix.
3) As a temporary work around (util nailgun get fixed) one could use /16 network instead of /24 one
It may work :)
> That's not a bug, the reporter misunderstands the DHCP protocol.
Ok, thanks for clarification. It looks like not every hardware provider knows it because when dnsmasq offered the same IP to both servers one of them failed :/
1) dnmasq does NOT lease duplicate IPs to clients
Ok
2) nailgun should not assume the node IP is set in the stone
It should not. If IP is not updated in db then this is a bug which we need to fix.
3) As a temporary work around (util nailgun get fixed) one could use /16 network instead of /24 one
It may work :)
> That's not a bug, the reporter misunderstands the DHCP protocol.
Ok, thanks for clarification. It looks like not every hardware provider knows it because when dnsmasq offered the same IP to both servers one of them failed :/