Hi Christian, On Sunday 25 November 2007 03:59, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > Could you please comment on this: > > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > > Unless I'm missing something obvious, I have dificulties figuring out > > how (on the same command line) to follow both rfc recommendations (the > > 60s and the 10s). If the dhcp-server doesn't answer, we try 4 times and > > wait 60s before we do another attempt _and_ if it answers but gives us a > > dupplicated ip-address, decline it and wait 10s before we repeat the > > cycle. > > Is my reasoning wrong?
udhcpc has many options already. I want to be a bit conservative here. Adding an option later is easier than adding it now and removing it later - users will start to use it and expect it to stay. Maybe it is needed. So far I am not convinced. Current code will use 20 seconds delay for both cases. Should not be a problem for any reasonable network, even 2 Mbit old wireless one. This is an insignificant deviation from RFC recommendation. As you know, other dhcp sprograms survive with much worse things, like wrong sizes of option field. ;) -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
