On 04/02/12 00:59, Jerry wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:35:02 +0100
Matthew Seaman articulated:
On 01/04/2012 14:35, RW wrote:
I had a modem that did something similar, it issued a temporary
private ip address and the replaced it with a routable address.
It's fairly sad that they don't use the officially mandated[*]
169.254.0.0/16 netblock which is what DHCP clients/servers are
supposed to use when they need to temporarily grab an address.
The difference here is that the DHCP server is in a different
address block to the DHCP server, but I'm not sure that's a
problem. I think that FreeBSD associates DHCP traffic with the
interface its operating on irrespective of normal routing.
Huh? One of those servers should be a client perhaps?
Yes. Contacting a DHCP server is done using Ethernet protocols (at
least initially.[+]) Not using IP. That means DHCP client and server
have to be on the same ethernet segment, or there should be a
DHCP-relay on any routers between the client and server. If that
fails, then the client can assign itself a link-local address and try
that, but it is pretty uncommon in the wild.
While you can run multiple different IP networks over the same
physical ethernet segment, and so have DHCP servers that dish out
addresses on networks distinct from any they have configured on their
own interfaces, you're more likely to run into this sort of scenario
if there are some DHCP relays in the picture.
Cheers,
Matthew
[*] RFC 5735
[+] Well, also except for IPv6 -- DHCP6 just uses the auto link-local
addresses which are pretty much always configured on any IPv6 capable
interface.
Mathew, I don't know if it is as cut and dry as that. The OP claimed
that his Microsoft PC connected properly but not his FreeBSD machine.
That, in itself, is certainly not surprising. I have always had better
luck setting up networks with Microsoft; however, why is it that he is
apparently the only FreeBSD user who is exhibiting these problems? I
suppose it is conceivable that he alone uses the northern Ohio Time
Warner cable system. I find that rather hard, although not impossible
to believe. Further more, is this one branch of the TW empire the only
one using this configuration? I kind of doubt that myself. It would
seem to me that the problem lies in the OP's configuration itself. He
claimed it worked with "AT&T". Is it possible he has some left over
remnants of that configuration that are causing this problem. Windows
would not suffer that problem since it creates a new configuration for
each new host.
Until it loses that configuration and you're expected to delete it and
re-enter the connection details...
Explain why it would be so hard to configure various functions as file
sharing and some of the more 'new' features for networking on Windows
then? A fellow IT colleague and I could not figure it out for the life
of us on the newer versions while it worked perfectly on the old '95,
'98, NT, 2k, XP systems. So no, Windows does not make networking easier-
in fact it has just about completely taken the guts out of networking to
abstract it from the user, making it nearly impossible for a networking
expert to configure.
I digress. In this case we're all only speculating as the OP hasn't
provided more detail, but it could be as simple as an unplugged cable :)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
