[BusyBox] udhcpc and ARP?

Steven Scholz steven.scholz at imc-berlin.de
Wed Aug 13 08:00:04 UTC 2003


Russ Dill wrote:

>>So, my question is this.  What, exactly, are we gaining by -_not_ arping
>>for the assigned values?  What case has been made for the exclusion of
>>this feature, and what were the the cases being made for it's inclusion?
>>Personally, I don't think code _size_ would be prohibitive, and an ARP
>>generating function seems fairly straight-forward, as we have the exact
>>values we are looking for on the network.
> 
> 
> you stand to lose 3 to 10 seconds on the transaction, even worse because
> the server also *should* arp for if the address is empty, so an
> otherwise speedy transaction could take 6 to 20 seconds.
> 
> Also, an arp is no guarantee that there is no computer using that
> address, it could very well be temporarily disconnected, turned off,
> locked up, etc. Basically, its the server and network admin's
> responsibility to take care of that stuff.
> 
> so yes, I do have valid reasons, and I understand the full implications.
:o)
Ok. Fair enough!
So how about adding this anyway using #ifdefs?

Steven




More information about the busybox mailing list