Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:11:07 +0100 From: Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: net@freebsd.org, clefevre@citeweb.net Subject: Re: PXE boot vs. DHCP Message-ID: <20011024171107.R46678@tao.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <200110241513.f9OFDq006831@vashon.polstra.com>; from jdp@polstra.com on Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 08:13:52AM -0700 References: <200110240705.f9O75Fo49531@gits.dyndns.org> <200110241513.f9OFDq006831@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 08:13:52AM -0700, John Polstra wrote: > Not quite. It's not the "PXE level," it's the normal operating state > of the system. The only difference is that it was booted with PXE > instead of by some other means. PXE booting is being used more and > more at large installations. My change addresses a common situation > which is becoming more common all the time. > > Shouldn't the standard dhclient installation function properly, > regardless of how the system was booted? I think it should. > > Also, I don't feel that my patch is a hack. The entire purpose of > dhclient's PREINIT phase is to put the network interface into an > enabled state so that IP packets can be sent. If the interface is > already up, then it is already in that state. By failing to check the > interface first, the current dhclient-script needlessly destroys its > configuration and hangs the system. That is a bug, and my patch fixes > it. Hear hear. Joe [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjvW6BsACgkQXVIcjOaxUBaKJACeMZzu29Df6S+ZSTwn0c1EGiFk hi8An38Izgq+UyL+5ea++I/IuMpAkGgc =3gsr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011024171107.R46678>