Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 23:27:43 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rarpd Message-ID: <E0vRY2Z-0004PJ-00@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 23 Nov 1996 19:40:41 PST." <96Nov23.194047pst.177567@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> References: <96Nov23.194047pst.177567@crevenia.parc.xerox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <96Nov23.194047pst.177567@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> Bill Fenner writes: : 02:31:11.328583 nectar Broadcast rarp 64: rarp who-is nectar tell nectar : 02:31:11.334754 fenestro nectar rarp 60: rarp reply nectar at nectar.parc.xerox.com OK. That's correct behavior. That's the kind of behavior that I'd love to see :-). : I don't see rarpd logging *anything*, which may indicate a problem with : my syslog.conf . But I also don't see either of the symptoms you are : reporting. I saw the messages in question with the following line in my /etc/syslog.conf file: *.* /var/log/all : Do you have lots of stuff in /tftpboot? rarpd does read in the whole : /tftpboot directory (or, at least until it sees the file representing : the host that it's thinking about sending a reply to). Yes, I do. rarpd should be smarter about telling you when there are problems there. I had 0a000002 when I needed 0A000002 for a while, but I figured that out before I posted. : Can you resolve the name that's in /etc/ethers for the booting machine? : Perhaps it's a resolver problem. You might want to put the name in : /etc/hosts and change /etc/host.conf to look at hosts first if so. Hmmm. That makes sense. 10ish seconds is the timeout for DNS, and the name isn't in DNS, since it is on a private 10.net that I don't wish to put into DNS. I'll have to see if that works better. What I had was bind,hosts, but I'll try hosts,bind (in the appropriate format). And that makes sense too. I added debugging to rarpd and found that the first read is the right size, and then the next read is like 1024 bytes, and that's where the truncated response comes from. A full buffer. I'm not sure why the while loop around line 620 isn't terminating correctly, since I've removed them. I'll look into this more, but I think there may be a minor problem here for that case, no? Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0vRY2Z-0004PJ-00>