Thanks Kevin!,
Kevin Benton mailto:blak...@gmail.com
20 Jun 2015 01:01via Postbox
https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=emailutm_medium=sumlinkutm_campaign=reach
As I understand it, it just allows other rules to be written that
specifically target pxe requests. So just enabling it won't
Thanks Kevin!,
Kevin Benton mailto:blak...@gmail.com
20 Jun 2015 01:01via Postbox
https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=emailutm_medium=sumlinkutm_campaign=reach
As I understand it, it just allows other rules to be written that
specifically target pxe requests. So just enabling it won't
As I understand it, it just allows other rules to be written that
specifically target pxe requests. So just enabling it won't have any effect.
http://www.richud.com/wiki/Network_iPXE_dnsmasq_Examples_PXE_BOOT
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo mangel...@redhat.com
wrote:
What
I'd like to resurrect this thread. The patch has been sitting for quite a
while.
Since it doesn't modify the responses by default of DHCP messages, I'm
inclined to just let it merge for now as a dnsmasq-specific change. Then
maybe later we can figure out how to expose this via the dhcp opts API
What does iPXE do exactly?,
What are the implications of having this enabled by default?
Cheers,
Miguel Ángel
Kevin Benton wrote:
I'd like to resurrect this thread. The patch has been sitting for quite a
while.
Since it doesn't modify the responses by default of DHCP messages, I'm
inclined
Hi,
In the following patch, I had a question about setting the IPXE tag by
default.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172040/
Basically, I'm unsure if we want to set this tag by default. I freely
admit that I'm not an expert in PXE, but my thinking is that rather than
enabling it by default, we
