Re: DHCPD and Windows question
I finally got some time to sit down with Wireshark and compare the bootp packets between the D-Link and the Linux box... The first thing that jumped out as different was the source address on the DHCP Offer packets. D-Link: 192.168.1.1 Linux: 127.0.0.1 So, something wasn't right. I began mucking around with a bunch of different settings based on the dhcpd.conf(5) pages. None seemed to work... After looking a little closer at the server-identifier tag, it was misconfigured... I was using the name instead of IP address. The man pages are a bit confusing though... It states: Theserver-identifier statement *server-identifier* hostname*;* The server-identifier statement can be used to define the value that is sent in the DHCP Server Identifier option for a given scope. The value specified*must* be an IP address for the DHCP server, and must be reachable by all clients served by a particular scope. So, it needs to be set to the --hostname-- but they really mean --IP-- Why they didn't just specify it as: Theserver-identifier statement *server-identifier* *address;* I guess we will never know... Right below that is the server-name tag, which really is the name. So, if anyone else runs into this problem, the answer is RTFM --Carefully-- before adding things to the config. Thanks to everyone for their help! - Todd On 1/30/2010 11:03 PM, Brian St. Pierre wrote: On Fri, January 29, 2010 7:10 pm, Todd Littlefield wrote: If I disable the daemon on the server and use the one on the router, the Windows boxes are happy... But that makes me unhappy. I'm at my wits end trying to get it figured out. Can you get a wireshark capture of (a) the broken request and (b) the working request? Then compare the two and change whatever is needed in your config (one thing at a time) to make (a) look more like (b). -- Brian St. Pierre ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: DHCPD and Windows question
On 2/14/2010 12:26 PM, Todd Littlefield wrote: I finally got some time to sit down with Wireshark and compare the bootp packets between the D-Link and the Linux box... The first thing that jumped out as different was the source address on the DHCP Offer packets. D-Link: 192.168.1.1 Linux: 127.0.0.1 So, something wasn't right. I began mucking around with a bunch of different settings based on the dhcpd.conf(5) pages. None seemed to work... After looking a little closer at the server-identifier tag, it was misconfigured... I was using the name instead of IP address. The man pages are a bit confusing though... It states: Theserver-identifier statement *server-identifier* hostname*;* The server-identifier statement can be used to define the value that is sent in the DHCP Server Identifier option for a given scope. The value specified*must* be an IP address for the DHCP server, and must be reachable by all clients served by a particular scope. So, it needs to be set to the --hostname-- but they really mean --IP-- Why they didn't just specify it as: Theserver-identifier statement *server-identifier* *address;* I guess we will never know... Right below that is the server-name tag, which really is the name. So, if anyone else runs into this problem, the answer is RTFM --Carefully-- before adding things to the config. In the man page for dhcpd.conf, after the paragraph above, it says: The use of the server-identifier statement is not recommended - the only reason to use it is to force a value other than the default value to be sent on occasions where the default value would be incorrect.The default value is the first IP address associated with the physical network interface on which the request arrived. The usual case where the server-identifier statement needs to be sent is when a physical interface has more than one IP address, and the one being sent by default isn't appropriate for some or all clients served by that interface. Another common case is when an alias is defined for the purpose of having a consistent IP address for the DHCP server, and it is desired that the clients use this IP address when contacting the server. So, you would not normally use it at all. I've never had a reason to use it myself. I suspect, if you had an entry in /etc/hosts mapping your desired IP to that hostname, and used that hostname in server-identifier, it would work. An IP derived from a DNS lookup wouldn't, however. -- Dan Jenkins, Rastech Inc. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: twitter vs identi.ca
Ben Scott dragonh...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.com wrote: Ralph A. Mack ralphm...@comcast.net writes: One intriguing characteristic of short messages is that it forces non-live discussion into a give-and-take mode resembling live conversation ... So, in other words..., it's yet another IM system? No, it's not Instant. (ducking) I guess that was supposed to be a joke, but it looks like you're actually *right* I had forgotten this (maybe blocked or repressed would be a more apropriate verb), but now I remember that a (non-technical) friend of mine actually explained her use of *Twitter* in exactly those terms--she said: I'm surprised *you* of all people don't use twitter. It's just like instant messenger, but not real-time. At the time, it didn't any sense to me, so I just discarded that piece of wisdom: all of the IM systems per se were already `not real-time' for me, because I'm *connected all the time*. I had (and have) been running curses-based IM-clients in a Screen session on an SSH server for so many *years* that I forgot that most people don't operate like that: they sign-on when they're at their computer, sign-off when they get up to go do something else, and don't have their scrollback or logs (if they even keep logs) available at all times from all places. But now, I think, I understand: an IM system that automatically keeps track of your conversations for you in one place--so that they're always available wherever you are; and that basically has an `IM voicemail' (without the `voice', obviously...) is *awesome*. And now I have an account on identi.ca: http://identi.ca/rozzin I *still* don't get *Twitter*, though. I just can't make much sense out of it: I find myself stepping into the middle of conversations, and only the last phrase uttered is immediately visible. The `scrollback' is *in the system*, but if I want to read it then I have to *track it down* *phrase by phrase*, like: OK, I see he said this in reply to this other person. The last thing that the other person said was this, which was in reply to this third person. ... and that all just falls apart if any of the participants have since moved on to *other* conversations: The last thing that this third person said was... part of a different conversation. FAIL. Identi.ca looks pretty nice, though--there's an in context link that I can follow to see an entire conversation-thread at once! And there are actually *threads*! It actually *seems* a lot like a system that I've wanted to develop for the past decade--if it really is, then I suppose that I'm elated that someone else found a way to built it for me :) It looks *sort-of* `like Twitter but less stupid', but really more `like FaceBook but less insular and hostile and two-faced and creepy'. Thanks to Ralph for helping me understand :) -- Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
