Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 17:32:47 -0700 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Andrew Gordon <arg@arg1.demon.co.uk> Cc: David Holloway <davidhol@windriver.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Overwhelming messages from /sys/netinet/if_ether.c Message-ID: <200004080032.RAA03588@mass.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 08 Apr 2000 01:12:15 BST." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004072318100.26224-100000@server.arg.sj.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, David Holloway wrote: > > > I say with 99% certainty that assigning 0.0.0.0 to > > the interface is a requirement of dhcp. > > > > You can't stop using it and expect dhcp to work. > > Yes, RFC2131 clause 4.1 says: > > DHCP messages broadcast by a client prior to that client obtaining > its IP address must have the source address field in the IP header > set to 0. > > RFC951 clause 7.1 says the same thing for BOOTP (though BOOTP and DHCP are > really the same protocol). > > > However, this isn't really an excuse for issuing ARP with a source address > of zero: the initial DHCP exchange is done with broadcasts (so doesn't > need ARP), and after that the address is known. The problem presumably > arises due to other traffic trying to go out while DHCP is still > configuring the interface. If you look at the original error message, you'll note that it's actually due to seeing another packet which claims the same Ip address. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200004080032.RAA03588>