On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Jason Bechtel wrote:
> Wolfgang-
>
> This is what happens when you use the 'default-lease-time -1' option?
> That would answer my question, then. If there is no true "lease" per
> se, and the only record of the address assignment is in the dhcpd.conf
> file, then even merely telling dhcpd to reread its conf file would be
> enough to handle the case of changing NICs in a client.
Yes, Jason, it seems to be like this.
Never had any problems doing it like that.
> So, if this is true, I think we could safely add (properly nested, of
> course) the 'default-lease-time -1' option to the dhcpd.conf.example
> file that is shipped with LTSP.
yep, I use it in a group statement
Wolfgang
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Jason Bechtel wrote:
> >>Okay, but what about just sending it the signal to reread its
> >>configuration file (SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2, or whatever it prefers)? Will
> >>this also be enough to release the infinitely assigned address? If so,
> >>then we have an excellent, foolproof and "tight" solution to one of the
> >>small problems that currently exist with LTSP.
> >>
> >>I don't administer any DHCP servers at the moment, so I can't test this.
> >>
> >
> > At work (school) I've got to manage three DHCP servers.
> > None of them has any entry in the servers leases file concerning clients
> > with fixed addresses, only clients with dynamically assigned addresses get
> > entries. Infinite lease time means IMHO, that the client will no longer
> > ask for renewal.
> >
> > Wolfgang
_____________________________________________________________________
Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.openprojects.net
