Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:30:41 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: obrien@NUXI.com Cc: Studded <Studded@dal.net>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DHCP in the base Message-ID: <199809162230.XAA01129@woof.lan.awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:51:08 PDT." <19980916115108.F24012@nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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.
Mine says:
interface "ep0" {
send host-name "woof";
prepend domain-name-servers 127.0.0.1;
}
And that's only because I want it that way. AFAIK, dhcpc doesn't
allow you to send anything interesting in your request... whereas the
above config says that I want to be called "woof". This gives you
the ability to configure a network with known machines as well as
on-demand machines.
Also, dhcps (the wide server) insists on each IP number in a range
being specified in dhcpdb.pool - at least this is the way I've ended
up using it. Dhcpd (the isc server) allows range specs, and also
allows specifics based on the information sent in the initial REQUEST
by the client.
I'm no dhcp expert, so feel free to knock any of these points - I may
be missing something in the man pages. It seems to me that the
(optional) config complexity reflects the capabilities of both :-|
> --
> -- David (obrien@NUXI.ucdavis.edu -or- obrien@FreeBSD.org)
>
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org>, <brian@FreeBSD.org>, <brian@OpenBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>;
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809162230.XAA01129>