On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:02:06PM +0200, Erik Auerswald wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:54:42AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:21:40AM +0200, Erik Auerswald wrote: > > Which version? There where several different DHCP client implementations > > in use over time. > All those using the one-shot busybox udhcpc.
Please be more specific. There is no one-shot busybox udhcpc, except it requested. Proof: | $ sudo ./busybox udhcpc -f -i eth0 -V d-i | udhcpc (v1.17.1) started | Sending discover... | Sending select for 10.42.1.252... | Lease of 10.42.1.252 obtained, lease time 10 | Sending renew... | Sending renew... | Sending renew... | Lease lost, entering init state | Sending discover... | Sending select for 10.42.1.252... | Lease of 10.42.1.252 obtained, lease time 10 The renew however seems to get lost somewhere, not sure why. > > > The debian installer does not renew a DHCP lease after it has expired. > > Possible. This means that the lease time is set to an insane low value. > > You could downgrade to request not-expiring bootp leases. > No. Sure. The installer takes usually less then 30 minutes. So the lease have to expire before that. So it is insanely low. > > > network with dynamic ARP inspection[1] this results in loosing the network > > > connection during installation. > > So you have a infrastructure, that breaks existing things. > No, d-i is broken by relying on the assumption that an IP address granted > for time t1 is valid for a time t2 > t1. Robustness principle. The dhcp spec explicitely requests that new clients have to check for the ip to be free before using it. Bastian -- Hailing frequencies open, Captain. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org