On 08/01/2011 07:15 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-31 at 12:25 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 31.07.2011 12:17, schrieb David Woodhouse:
>>> On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 16:37 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
IIRC connman (i.e. NM's competition) can do the ARP magic, too.
>>> I don't th
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:25:49PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 13:43 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Bill McGonigle
> > wrote:
> > > On 08/03/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > >> The Ubuntu NM maintainer has posted a WIP patch that
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 13:43 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> > On 08/03/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> The Ubuntu NM maintainer has posted a WIP patch that makes NM say it's
> >> connected immediately if at least one of IPv4 or IPv
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Nathaniel McCallum
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
>> On 08/03/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> The Ubuntu NM maintainer has posted a WIP patch that makes NM say it's
>>> connected immediately if at least one of IPv4 or IPv6 com
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On 08/03/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> The Ubuntu NM maintainer has posted a WIP patch that makes NM say it's
>> connected immediately if at least one of IPv4 or IPv6 completes.
>> Currently if both are enabled, NM won't say it's conn
On 08/03/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> The Ubuntu NM maintainer has posted a WIP patch that makes NM say it's
> connected immediately if at least one of IPv4 or IPv6 completes.
> Currently if both are enabled, NM won't say it's connected until both
> are done (and result in either success or
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 00:09 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 17:12 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> > On 08/01/2011 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > It seems like there's which has to happen after
> > > wake before NM even attempts to re-establish a connection, and that's
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 17:12 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > It seems like there's which has to happen after
> > wake before NM even attempts to re-establish a connection, and that's
> > the longest delay, at least for me. Anyone know what that some
On 08/01/2011 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It seems like there's which has to happen after
> wake before NM even attempts to re-establish a connection, and that's
> the longest delay, at least for me. Anyone know what that something is,
> and whether it can be optimized?
I don't know what y
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 17:49 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> What's unique about the method described there is that the Mac
> configures the interface with the same IP address it previously had if
> the lease is still valid, while NetworkManager waits for the DHCP server
> confirm the lease. So we co
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 12:15 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> So both sides need to do some work to make things go as quickly as
> possible.
Do you know if dd-wrt 'does the right thing'? It's the standard fix for
'help! I bought a consumer router!', and has a pretty responsive
maintenance team, so tha
e that the Mac attempts to ARP a number of different
> > DHCP
> > > servers (192.168.2.1, 192.168.4.1, 192.168.1.1) which would be
> > pointless
> > > with NetworkManager, because it's extremely unlikely that the DHCP
> > > server on your wifi network has cha
On Sun, 2011-07-31 at 12:25 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 31.07.2011 12:17, schrieb David Woodhouse:
> > On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 16:37 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> IIRC connman (i.e. NM's competition) can do the ARP magic, too.
> >
> > I don't think so. ConnMan doesn't remember the la
192.168.1.1) which would be
> pointless
> > with NetworkManager, because it's extremely unlikely that the DHCP
> > server on your wifi network has changed; NM would simply know that
> the
> > last DHCP server used *on that wifi network* was 192.168.1.1 and not
> >
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:35:29AM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:30:30PM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > On 07/30/2011 06:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > What's unique about the method described there is that the Mac
> > > configures the interface with the same IP add
Am 31.07.2011 12:17, schrieb David Woodhouse:
> On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 16:37 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> IIRC connman (i.e. NM's competition) can do the ARP magic, too.
>
> I don't think so. ConnMan doesn't remember the last DHCP setup at all,
> and doesn't even set the DHCP_REQUESTED_IP
On 07/31/2011 12:35 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:30:30PM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 07/30/2011 06:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> ...
>>> So we could presumptuously configure the interface
>>> with the previous address from the lease and then only tear it down
>>>
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 16:37 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> IIRC connman (i.e. NM's competition) can do the ARP magic, too.
I don't think so. ConnMan doesn't remember the last DHCP setup at all,
and doesn't even set the DHCP_REQUESTED_IP option — so it gets
gratuitously changed IP addresses eac
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 17:49 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> NM already keeps DHCP information around based on the network you're
> connecting to, so we don't need to ARP a bunch of servers just to
> determine whether the DHCP server we wanted is still there.
That's fine on wireless, but not so usef
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:30:30PM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/30/2011 06:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > What's unique about the method described there is that the Mac
> > configures the interface with the same IP address it previously had if
> > the lease is still valid, while NetworkMan
On 07/30/2011 06:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> NM already keeps DHCP information around based on the network you're
> connecting to, so we don't need to ARP a bunch of servers just to
> determine whether the DHCP server we wanted is still there. dhclient is
Cool - so is NM already pretty opt
etwork has changed; NM would simply know that the
> last DHCP server used *on that wifi network* was 192.168.1.1 and not
> bother to try talking to other ones like Mac OS X appears to do.
>
> NM could use the same method of ARPing multiple DHCP servers that Mac OS
> X does, but it
e
last DHCP server used *on that wifi network* was 192.168.1.1 and not
bother to try talking to other ones like Mac OS X appears to do.
NM could use the same method of ARPing multiple DHCP servers that Mac OS
X does, but it wouldn't provide much additional benefit, if any, at
least on WiFi
On 07/30/2011 10:37 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sat, 30.07.11 10:31, Genes MailLists (li...@sapience.com) wrote:
>
http://cafbit.com/entry/rapid_dhcp_or_how_do
>>>
>
> IIRC connman (i.e. NM's competition) can do the ARP magic, too.
>
> Lennart
>
Seems like a pretty reasonable t
On Sat, 30.07.11 10:31, Genes MailLists (li...@sapience.com) wrote:
> >> http://cafbit.com/entry/rapid_dhcp_or_how_do
> >
>
> Hmm ... the complaint of changing IP does not seem to make sense - as I
> read the article - the MAC simply remembers server info and instead of a
> blind dhcp (which cau
On 07/30/2011 04:48 AM, Ryan Rix wrote:
...
> Reading the hackernews comments on it makes me wonder if this is a very good
> idea. It may work for people in certain usecases, but in the case of Fedora
> probably not so much
>
> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2756952
> http://news.ycombina
e case of Fedora
probably not so much
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2756952
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2757785
for examples
r
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Sridhar Dhanapalan
> Date: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM
> Subject: Rapid DHCP
Interesting message in another list.
for me fedora is very slow to get dhcp address.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sridhar Dhanapalan
Date: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM
Subject: Rapid DHCP
To: OLPC Devel , OLPC Australia list
Here's an article that tries to explain wh
28 matches
Mail list logo
