Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:51:08 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com> To: Studded <Studded@dal.net>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DHCP in the base Message-ID: <19980916115108.F24012@nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <35FFFCA0.1EE20978@dal.net>; from Studded on Wed, Sep 16, 1998 at 11:00:00AM -0700 References: <29788.905873035@critter.freebsd.dk> <199809152113.WAA04879@woof.lan.awfulhak.org> <19980916000952.E15240@nuxi.com> <199809161422.KAA06798@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <35FFFCA0.1EE20978@dal.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> For the record, I think that contrib'ifying the ISC source would be
> good, then we could build the client by default and maybe add a
I'd like to debate the merit of WIDE-dhcp vs. ISC's offering. Why is it
assumed ISC's is the one to go with? Since we have committers with close
relations to WIDE, we could see if they would be willing to look at
makeing their client so it doens't require bpf.
IF we want to add DHCP to the boot floppy, the WIDE client is certainly
smaller.
I use DHCP for my net connection every day for over a year, and the WIDE
client has performed very, very well for me.
``dhcpc fxp0''
Is all I do and all I need is /usr/local/sbin/dhcpc. With the ISC client
there is a VERY extensive config file needed.
--
-- David (obrien@NUXI.ucdavis.edu -or- obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980916115108.F24012>