From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 7 16:50:26 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CE916A420 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:50:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from David_Hankins@isc.org) Received: from kaboom.isc.org (kaboom.isc.org [204.152.187.72]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6822443D4C for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:50:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from David_Hankins@isc.org) Received: by kaboom.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10200) id 35FE448E32; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:50:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:50:25 -0800 From: "David W. Hankins" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20060207165025.GB23573@isc.org> References: <20060205060416.3C11045041@ptavv.es.net> <200602060802.16643.matt@mattsnetwork.co.uk> <7.0.0.16.2.20060206205810.02239b00@mailshack.com> <200602061111.46404.matt@mattsnetwork.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200602061111.46404.matt@mattsnetwork.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Subject: Re: dhclient in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:50:26 -0000 --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:11:45AM +0000, Matt Dawson wrote: > send host-name `hostname -s`; I currently have *three* competing "execute()" patches queued for ISC DHCP 3.1.0 which could be used to do this: send host-name execute("hostname -s"); send fqdn.fqdn execute("hostname"); send fqdn.encoded on; send fqdn.server_update [off/on]; do-forward-updates [opposite of fqdn.server_update]; ISC dhclient also doesn't identify itself uniquely in the vendor-class-id option...this to my knowledge hasn't been a problem since no one seems to need to configure server-specific workarounds for the ISC dhclient. If they had to, they also wouldn't be able to, is what I mean. The point is we could also produce a vendor-id like; send vendor-class-identifier concat("ISC DHCP 3.1.x - ", execute("uname -s -r -m")); Which, I might point out, is similar to dhcpcd's default behaviour. We could also easily do both of these by default. No problem. We could even enclose the host-name in a conditional to detect unset hostnames so you don't get eight boxes claiming to be "default". But these are privacy questions more than technical ones. Is it right to default to less privacy in this case? --=20 David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFD6M/RcXeLeWu2vmoRAtMDAJwMrZBV6NotzB4yqKIL6urLJU2hwACfWjvT patXiLW33evVA4NdeYpDEhA= =Hr1c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA--