On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 15:57 -0500, Robert Love wrote: > On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 11:35 -0500, Peter Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 10:57 -0500, Darren Albers wrote: > > > > I have had other bug reports that users need DHCP timeouts in the 30~40 > > > > second range. To be sure, most ifup scripts wait longer than 25s. > > > > > > > > > > I think a timeout in the 30-40 second range would also resolve the > > > issues with portfast... > > > > 45 or so is generally what's claimed. But this isn't a good answer for > > spanning tree -- it means if you really don't have dhcp on your network, > > we're punishing you by making you wait extra long for before falling > > back to other methods. > > So, at 25s now, we are nearly 50% off. > > Dan, what do you say to bumping the timeout to 40 or 45?
Yeah, I guess we bump it up and try to be clever in the next major release if we can. Dan _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
