From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 1 14:59:43 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06397106566B for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 14:59:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerry@seibercom.net) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE548FC0C for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 14:59:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yhgm50 with SMTP id m50so1074620yhg.13 for ; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 07:59:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:reply-to :organization:x-mailer:face:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=2cq0UXj58qJ1IV9gzCSbC0B2pzzCtTsokwpOXph+U5c=; b=CBmAtCNI5xXNjF84JqknqiO9uLIdo8r1dB4TwGRG+MraZZg4hV+kPdOBv6EMF+9rwa 8P8yfrycuu1bJGmp8YP305YKb14fVpXKSZaJ0RvOlOWOpNn0ND0gtvLt1ADpKu4M4HTw Kudr2dBP8sBc8uj71dMaA+h7XAzMMrg0tphhzIY5IdwGZGbC6jKqTydztbsKGSri+GI6 Th13dvfIlfkSq0wSNhONMsepmKC8jBiVX+9fPFs/F5iZpOWPpU7Hpc0kqjg85/oHXQWo 1IkCu5HAadKC5O1nAmUQV+q1E6jnD8tEx8jiUCO5Fce/88IpNASyn2lW7NvyH7VyH9D2 VC+Q== Received: by 10.101.20.1 with SMTP id x1mr1334508ani.36.1333292375969; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 07:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scorpio.seibercom.net (cpe-076-182-104-150.nc.res.rr.com. [76.182.104.150]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b4sm19590145anb.22.2012.04.01.07.59.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 01 Apr 2012 07:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scorpio (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jerry@scorpio.seibercom.net) by scorpio.seibercom.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3VLKTx5Nrtz2CG5d for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:59:33 -0400 From: Jerry To: FreeBSD Message-ID: <20120401105933.4c6a9d77@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <4F786796.5010903@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F7798D0.7000404@a1poweruser.com> <4F77A360.9080601@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <4F77A6CA.50406@a1poweruser.com> <20120401143541.4d7d186f@gumby.homeunix.com> <4F786796.5010903@FreeBSD.org> Organization: seibercom.net X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.2) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkLqcC6ljJJc/71w1LA7/MVFMhFE5ommfuMsjELeuEMSFfPQeUtR/7fFThk2wD68InZu0A2 Subject: Re: Access to Time Warner cable network X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: FreeBSD List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:59:43 -0000 On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:35:02 +0100 Matthew Seaman articulated: > On 01/04/2012 14:35, RW wrote: > > I had a modem that did something similar, it issued a temporary > > private ip address and the replaced it with a routable address. > > It's fairly sad that they don't use the officially mandated[*] > 169.254.0.0/16 netblock which is what DHCP clients/servers are > supposed to use when they need to temporarily grab an address. > > > The difference here is that the DHCP server is in a different > > address block to the DHCP server, but I'm not sure that's a > > problem. I think that FreeBSD associates DHCP traffic with the > > interface its operating on irrespective of normal routing. > > Huh? One of those servers should be a client perhaps? > > Yes. Contacting a DHCP server is done using Ethernet protocols (at > least initially.[+]) Not using IP. That means DHCP client and server > have to be on the same ethernet segment, or there should be a > DHCP-relay on any routers between the client and server. If that > fails, then the client can assign itself a link-local address and try > that, but it is pretty uncommon in the wild. > > While you can run multiple different IP networks over the same > physical ethernet segment, and so have DHCP servers that dish out > addresses on networks distinct from any they have configured on their > own interfaces, you're more likely to run into this sort of scenario > if there are some DHCP relays in the picture. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > [*] RFC 5735 > > [+] Well, also except for IPv6 -- DHCP6 just uses the auto link-local > addresses which are pretty much always configured on any IPv6 capable > interface. Mathew, I don't know if it is as cut and dry as that. The OP claimed that his Microsoft PC connected properly but not his FreeBSD machine. That, in itself, is certainly not surprising. I have always had better luck setting up networks with Microsoft; however, why is it that he is apparently the only FreeBSD user who is exhibiting these problems? I suppose it is conceivable that he alone uses the northern Ohio Time Warner cable system. I find that rather hard, although not impossible to believe. Further more, is this one branch of the TW empire the only one using this configuration? I kind of doubt that myself. It would seem to me that the problem lies in the OP's configuration itself. He claimed it worked with "AT&T". Is it possible he has some left over remnants of that configuration that are causing this problem. Windows would not suffer that problem since it creates a new configuration for each new host. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________