Good evening, On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Bastian Blank wrote: > Subject: Re: Bug#282354: install: dhclient sends and accept improper > request/offer > > tags 282354 moreinfo > thanks
Sorry, as a first-time Debian home user, I am not up-to-date with bugreport policy. So, should I be concerned by this? Some FAQ, maybe? Some update on my case: it always happen during netinstall. For some reason, afterwards, the network is properly brought up, so this is repeatable only during install-time. Furthermore the same setup was used for the same machine under Slackware 10 and Windows 2000, and it worked. In any case, I can manage to provide ssh access to check the configuration if the need arises. > > However, dhclient requests an IP of the shape 192.168.0.X, and accepts > > an IP of the shape 192.168.1.X D'oh, contradicts my reportbug title. Let me rephrase this: dhclient requests a 192.168.0.X IP on its eth1 interface. Server is configured to give 192.168.1.X IPs on its eth1 interface, and 192.168.0.X on its eth0 interface. It accepts this request (see end of mail). > Please provide an example of the dhcp request and response packets. Sorry again, but I'm too unfamiliar with DHCP ports and tcpdump to know how to dump those packets. In any case, here are excerpt from various logs of such requests: server: /var/log/messages --8<-- Nov 22 22:10:25 ebichu dnsmasq[927]: DHCPDISCOVER(eth1) 00:26:54:0e:25:6c Nov 22 22:10:25 ebichu dnsmasq[927]: DHCPOFFER(eth1) 192.168.0.79 00:26:54:0e:25:6c Nov 22 22:10:27 ebichu dnsmasq[927]: DHCPREQUEST(eth1) 192.168.0.79 00:26:54:0e:25:6c Nov 22 22:10:27 ebichu dnsmasq[927]: DHCPACK(eth1) 192.168.0.79 00:26:54:0e:25:6c giskatrix --8<-- client: /var/log/syslog --8<-- /var/log/daemon.log:25:Nov 22 21:14:20 localhost dhclient: DHCPACK from 192.168.0.0 /var/log/daemon.log:26:Nov 22 21:14:20 localhost dhclient: bound to 192.168.0.79 -- renewal in 1046329187 seconds. --8<-- Debian client was badly configured on GMT+0 and clocks aren't regulated by NNTP, so you shouldn't mind the time difference. Once I noticed that it is 192.168.0.0 that replies, I've decided to check the server's dnsmasq.conf: both interfaces had the mask 255.255.0.0. Could this be the cause of the problem, and a misconfiguration only on the server side? In such case, I doublely apology for falsely reporting that and marking it as important. Hoping this helps enough, -- Christophe GISQUET Hello! This is a signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
