On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> That's the bug here, I think. I was worried that a client sending a
> DHCPDISCOVER when it thinks it knows that address, might respond to ICMP
> pings, but at least for ISC dhclient on Linux, that's not the case.
>
> Patch is here, and was mu
> Simon, is there any chance of a 'test5' bundling all the latest tweaks
> into a tarball? It's much easier to get the LEDE guys to accept a test
> release tarball than it is loads of patchesand it means the code
> would get tested by a wider community.
>
Done.
As soon as we reach a final
On 28/04/17 22:20, Simon Kelley wrote:
That's the bug here, I think. I was worried that a client sending a
DHCPDISCOVER when it thinks it knows that address, might respond to ICMP
pings, but at least for ISC dhclient on Linux, that's not the case.
Patch is here, and was much more trouble than i
On 25/04/17 08:41, Alin Năstac wrote:
>> At the DHCPDISCOVER stage, both the server and the client are supposed
>> to check if an address in in use. The server sends an ICMP echo request
>> and checks there's no answer. The client sends an ARP who-has request.
>> These checks should be enough to a
> What I did to fix it was to send a NACK to the initial DHCP request,
> which luckily convinced the ISC DHCP client to stop asking for the
> same IP address in the following DHCP discovery. However, NACK will
> not quarantee all DHCP clients will do the same, so the case where
> DHCP discovery is
On 25/04/2017 08:08, Alin Năstac wrote:
> I'm talking about second case, the "static" one. The use case is this:
> 1) Client A using ISC DHCP client gets a lease from a different LAN called X
> 2) Client A gets disconnected from LAN X and connected to LAN Y where
> dnsmasq DHCP server runs in a non
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 24/04/17 10:16, Alin Năstac wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Simon Kelley
>> wrote:
>>> On 20/04/17 10:34, Alin Nastac wrote:
Hosts that migrate from one network to another could request their
old IP address which mig
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 3:43 PM, wrote:
> On 04/24/2017 05:16 AM, Alin Năstac wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Simon Kelley
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> When the client sends the discovery packet, dnsmasq will notice that the
>>> requested address is in use by another client, and offer a diffe
On 24/04/17 10:16, Alin Năstac wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> On 20/04/17 10:34, Alin Nastac wrote:
>>> Hosts that migrate from one network to another could request their
>>> old IP address which might be already in use by another statically
>>> configured host. C
On 04/24/2017 05:16 AM, Alin Năstac wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
When the client sends the discovery packet, dnsmasq will notice that the
requested address is in use by another client, and offer a different
address instead.
You did not understood the scenario. T
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 20/04/17 10:34, Alin Nastac wrote:
>> Hosts that migrate from one network to another could request their
>> old IP address which might be already in use by another statically
>> configured host. Currently non-authoritative dnsmasq servers w
On 20/04/17 10:34, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Hosts that migrate from one network to another could request their
> old IP address which might be already in use by another statically
> configured host. Currently non-authoritative dnsmasq servers will
> ignore such requests, but ISC DHCP client will send d
Hosts that migrate from one network to another could request their
old IP address which might be already in use by another statically
configured host. Currently non-authoritative dnsmasq servers will
ignore such requests, but ISC DHCP client will send discovery packets
next carrying the same reques
13 matches
Mail list logo
