Am Freitag, den 23.03.2007, 13:09 +0100 schrieb Wolf, Josef:
> Thanks for the answer, Erwin!
>
> Erwin Authried wrote:
>
> > > I'm trying to move from dhcpcd-new to busybox's udhcpc. The first
> > > difference I noticed is that udhcpc won't work unless
> > > "ifconfig eth0 up" is issued before udhcpc is invoked. dhcpcd-new
> > > don't need the ifonfig command.
> > >
> > > Is this the way it should be? Are there any problems (e.g race
> > > conditions, since bringing up the interface is not atomic anymore)
> > > to be expected from that?
> >
> > The busybox udhcpc relies on an action script (default
> > = /usr/share/udhcpc/default.script). The interface is brought up there
> > in deconfigured state:
>
> I am aware of that. But the problem is not with the script. udhcpc
> calls the script _after_ it has acquired the lease. My problem is that
> if the interface is down, then udhcpc will fail to get a lease in the
> first lace. It therefore _never_ calls the script with the "bound"
> option.
the script is called multiple times, the first time it is called after
udhcpcd has been started.
You can try that to see how it works:
==> /usr/share/udhcpc/default.script <==
#!/bin/sh
echo DEFAULT SCRIPT: $*
case $1 in
deconfig)
ifconfig $interface 0.0.0.0
;;
renew|bound)
ifconfig $interface $ip
;;
esac
exit 0
>
> BTW: How do I configure udhcpc to send the hostname to the server? The
> "-H hostname" option seems to _request_ a hostname from the server.
> Why is -H taking an argument then?
no, that should be the client's hostname, this is sent to the dhcp
server, as far as I know.
Regards,
Erwin
--
Dipl.-Ing. Erwin Authried
Softwareentwicklung und Systemdesign
_______________________________________________
uClinux-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by [email protected]
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
