[BusyBox] Lease remembering in udhcpc?
floydpink at gmail.com
Sun Aug 21 23:17:03 UTC 2005
It pains me to say this because his tact is non-existent, but I agree with
If you are using DHCP, you should never be introducing potential caching
issues. If there is such an unreliable system that this happens often,
either use static IP or something like zero config to fall back. Reusing a
stale lease is never a good solution.
If it is on the wrong subnet, you have one of three options. It works, it
doesn't work, it doesn't work and the routers start sending notifications to
the IT guy that wrong subnet traffic is on the wire. In the 99.9999% times
where you are still on the same subnet, why the heck did you DHCP server go
On 8/21/05, Josef Wolf <jw@> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 06:17:58PM +0200, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> > The second is not so easy, though, because all times in DHCP are
> > relative to the beginning of a particular negotiation cycle, which
> > means that the client can neither reliably determine if the lease is
> > valid (the host clock could have changed arbitrarily in the meantime)
> Umpf... I can't believe you're really worrying about the clock.
> I understand that DHCP times are relative. But this doesn't mean that
> they can't be converted to a more sane format. There are several dhcp
> clients which are able to cope with this clock problem...
> > nor does it know if it is still usable at all (client might be running
> > on a different subnet).
> So what? it _might_ be on a different subnet. But in 99.9999% it will be
> on the _same_ subnet. But even _if_ it happens to be on a different
> subnet: what's the problem?
> No software patents in Europe -- http://nosoftwarepatents.com
> -- Josef Wolf -- jw at raven.inka.de --
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at mail.busybox.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the busybox