[BusyBox] udhcp patches/ endianess

[Russ Dill]

> So unless I am very much mistaken, this is correct for both
> cases.

Why not keep the known, working crc algorithm? Its not as if the code is
doing the calculation very often and on very much data.


> As you have pointed out in a previous e-mail: I have the source and
> can twist that to my liking (for instance, I like working timeout
> algorithms and I dislike sending out packets containing 302
> meaningless zero octets.

Some clients and server barf on packets that don't have the full payload
size. Most of the stuff in udhcp is there for a pretty good reason.