Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:28:28 +0900 From: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Cc: vova@fbsd.ru, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, matt@gsicomp.on.ca Subject: Re: HEADSUP: OpenBSD dhclient incoming Message-ID: <m2vf4e4mur.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <42B1146C.6070508@errno.com> References: <20050614205537.D62878@gabby.gsicomp.on.ca> <1118806968.1003.9.camel@localhost> <20050615061009.GA11914@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050615.003020.99022728.imp@bsdimp.com> <42B1146C.6070508@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:55:56 -0700, sam wrote: > I've noticed one issue. If you mark an interface down then dhclient > exits but any assigned ip address is not removed. This is a change from > the previous dhclient and something I thought I'd fixed (but clearly > not). OTOH brooks pointed out that leaving the ip address around means > tcp sessions don't immediately die so if you reconnect and reacquire the > same lease your sessions can be revived if they were idle. I too see this in my test lab. I'm not sure if this effects the scripts, but other than that it does not seem like a bad change. According to the protocol the interface only needs to have its IP removed if the client is active and if it cannot renew the lease and bringing the interface down effectively removes the IP address from the network. Later, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2vf4e4mur.wl%gnn>