Hi Markus, Thanks for looking at my suggestion. I'd like to explain my point of view better:
It would be fairly easy to mimick the said "minimum lease time" check in the script. However, that introduces a problem of duplicated code which is hard to maintain. Whenever busybox updated this minimum, the script could break for some users. For example, a recent change moved this min value from 16s to 122s. https://www.mail-archive.com/busybox@busybox.net/msg25448.html In my view, the unexpected/mismatched behavior is already there, as the udhcpc "says A and does B". It would be just fine if both udhcpc and the script used the original lease time provided by the server (30s). However, udhcpc does not. (probably because it honors the rfc2131 rule for minimum interval of 60s before attempting renewal) In systems where the --script option is used, udhcpc is not making system changes itself, it's only a "middleman", and so it becomes problematic if it "lies" about what it's doing (it postpones address renewal (T1) to 61s, instead of using 15s). It currently requires special considerations from the user. > else it will introduce an unexpected behavior. In case you are not convinced, can you please elaborate on that statement? What are the use cases for the current solution? Why would the user/script be interested in a value which is not respected by udhcpc? Thanks for your time. Regards Karel _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox