Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 05:03:11 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@FreeBSD.ORG> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: svn commit: r239356 - head/sbin/dhclient Message-ID: <20120821010311.GA8250@vniz.net> In-Reply-To: <201208201409.55544.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201208171553.q7HFrhuf090457@svn.freebsd.org> <201208171507.07699.jhb@freebsd.org> <20120818195724.GA74684@vniz.net> <201208201409.55544.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 02:09:55PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > RFC 2131 (if you mean it) describes DHCP process itself, it does not > > define contents of 'supersede' or other override options for dhclient. > > The supersede handling bits are all based on what the protocol can actually > send, which the RFC defines as IPv4. 'supercede' itself not based on DHCPv4, it simple override anything protocol can actually send and in general case overriding contents can be any IP. But... I agree with you that it looks like quick hack. Having dual-stack machine it seems proper way for me to run both DHCP and DHCPv6 clients (net-mgmt/wide-dhcp? net/dhcp6?). But I fear they both will interact with single /etc/resolv.conf overriding each other there. > > Moreover, current dhclient somewhow able to fetch my IPv6 tunnel DNS > > address from the roiter (I don't look deeper, maybe it is router bug), but > > I don't want IPv6 tunnel DNS, I want router fe80:... DNS instead. > > Eh? DHCP can't return an IPv6 address in the protocol. As I already mention, perhaps it is router bug combined with the lack of validity checking in dhclient itself. As result I currently have /etc/resolv.conf: nameserver 192.168.1.1 nameserver <ipv6 address of the tunnel NS> -- http://ache.vniz.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120821010311.GA8250>