hi please don't cc: me on this bug report.
i can't say more than the fact that it happens to me on a similar configuration as the one reported in the bug report. my system has only packages from debian testing. ciao a.l.e On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Andrew Pollock <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:17:13AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:30:12 -0700 >> Andrew Pollock <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I may have spoken too soon. There's no noticeable time difference >> > between a run of dhclient with or without the -1 option (although I'd >> > have thought we'd want dhclient to hang around in the background in >> > case a cable was subsequently plugged in, so I still don't think that >> > adding -1 to how ifup invokes dhclient is a particularly desirable >> > thing) >> >> Well, I don't really know what is worse: to have ifupdown to think it's >> okay and mark our interface as being up, but not having it really >> configured (so we have some inconsistency), or to require a user to run >> ifplugd or something to bring it back up when the link is available >> again or to run ifup again by hand. Probably I will just implement some >> kind of callbacks in the next version of ifupdown so we can make it >> really working. > > Hey Andrew, thanks for chiming in. > > So if I'm understanding what you've said correctly, you're trying to solve > the problem where ifup runs dhclient, dhclient fails to get a lease, but > ifup considers the interface up? > > What about the scenario where a server boots and *something* between it and > the DHCP server is temporarily down (including the DHCP server) so it > doesn't get a lease at ifup time, but the dhclient that persists in the > background eventually gets one when the temporarily issue is resolved? With > the -1 option, an administrator is going to have to physically visit the > server to rectify the situation, whereas without the -1, it'll sort itself > out (eventually). > > Not that any of this is looking relevant to #675372, as I can reproduce the > problem without the -1 option. > > regards > > Andrew > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJP3WYHAAoJEFHf2Ts++3nvZL4P/2+G6SBODTtb9Bzo/ss2SID4 > 7ldkcS1Eddo3RekHRKRanbJZV0HIaCEjGPryTgrnRJrq9rYJENxKxFIjfZC4pD27 > lKj4mf1ButN2pzfCPvDb3mI1j+Jrncux5nM+JwtrCflD/eLyWoPJEWufdYP6G0XC > L3BhXVbgr+dY4k/9V3QJLSINSdnuPE7zN2BFD9lJPBw+0Xln2syLrdG4fD1R6rSO > hrDC2LqiRnhXvafdJkv48gKiWlMBeTvyCkQLN7fpCj5EsrB7JtXZsJ2OfFH8uJ2D > TgW6Ekai2QGK8eGhHBhRTk3fwwfRI3+wjIPd8HQjzeXuNaW/qbA+HKUhjFEiDYYT > rskrO2rjk7PBQ3QdUwXtEilCnGwPqZ/UWZqmvrBk7WTVcI/45KEpLEUQWBMBFRIU > I06AA73pYaNcx0CbtncAdSnHXdhc6k2NFH3KksGCTywYNrnFNfcC/FzMns8Z5Py1 > b6cGY+u/Ve9dULN0z20FmTQlu2M0w0tuZTI8hdlnu5mIdr/guvd24GUISrLRTTk1 > O0S2KYOmWXsUc2eC0P7ZtD4BydoJpBubRJ+BMg9GepXwsXXN1H4TuGDUHkMCca9R > WeMp9rYiQUxAGv5U5WnG4NDCsV/q5GLQCQbVB6C/mkbggA27P4OpnRdy2sWDrPSn > /AFWwWuYWlM45RcfUhdk > =4vMk > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
