In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> IMHO it is an RFC requirement, however the solution with a synchronous
>
> Eh, that does not parse. Either it is a matter of opinion, or it is a
> matter of standard. Please pick one, not both; they are incompatible.
s/IMHO/AFAIK/ - but see my other po
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:28:51AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > Seems like this script really belongs in the examples directory.
>
> IMHO it is an RFC requirement, however the solution with a synchronous
Eh, that does not parse. Either it is a matt
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:20:47PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:48:23AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 08:03:13PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Jun 29, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Come on, how often this happens? And it's
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Can you please stat which RFC? Especially as there are many setups where
> it can't check if an address is already used.
Well, it is SHOULD for DHCP RFC2131 clients (and icmp from server), for Link
Level Autoconfiguration (in IPV4 RFC3927 and IPV6 RFC246
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:20:47PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > And DHCP clients should double-check their assigned address with ARP
> > anyway, so it's duplicating this check on most systems.
> Where is this specified? The DHCP server is authorative about the
> addresses it assigns.
ISC dhcp s
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:28:51AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> IMHO it is an RFC requirement, however the solution with a synchronous
> script is not that well suited for default-on.
Can you please stat which RFC? Especially as there are many setups where
it can't check if an address is alread
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:48:23AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 08:03:13PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Jun 29, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Come on, how often this happens? And it's disabled by default anyway.
> > The major effect of this patch is to w
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Seems like this script really belongs in the examples directory.
IMHO it is an RFC requirement, however the solution with a synchronous
script is not that well suited for default-on.
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
2008/7/6 Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jun 29, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Note that duplicate IPs can be very harmful and even cause loss of data. For
> Come on, how often this happens? And it's disabled by default anyway.
> The major effect of this patch is to waste ti
On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 08:03:13PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 29, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Note that duplicate IPs can be very harmful and even cause loss of data.
> > For
> Come on, how often this happens? And it's disabled by default anyway.
> The major effect of
On Jun 29, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that duplicate IPs can be very harmful and even cause loss of data. For
Come on, how often this happens? And it's disabled by default anyway.
The major effect of this patch is to waste time on almost every system
every time *any* interfac
11 matches
Mail list logo
