On April 8 2007 13:20, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 13:06 -0400, Ed Jabbour wrote: > > /var/lib/dhcp3/dhclient.eth0.leases has dates in it that do not > > seem to relate to anything. It has two entries. one stating that > > the DHCP lease expired two days ago, and another that states it > > will expire in 2038:
>> renew 5 2007/4/6 17:38:58; >> rebind 5 2007/4/6 17:38:58; >> expire 5 2007/4/6 17:38:58; >> >> renew 2 2038/1/19 03:14:07; >> rebind 2 2038/1/19 03:14:07; >> expire 2 2038/1/19 03:14:07; > First off, are you having any problem? OK, I'll try to pretend I understand this stuff. I intermittently lose connection and have to unplug/replug the modem, which as I understand it, gets me a new lease. I suspected that the Netgear router was failing to properly negotiate a new lease on its own when one came down from Comcast. This was mentioned on Netgear's site, and following their recommendation, I upgraded the firmware. While trying to investigate the lease, I was led to the above file with the funny lease times. The router itself shows that the lease was given 4 days ago and expires in 3 days plus some odd. The difference makes me wonder if there's a software problem someplace. > Second, where are you getting your DHCP ack and reply from (Comcast, > a router or a real DHCP server on you LAN? The router is a client vis-a-vis Comcast and a server vis-a-vis the LAN. So, I get the lease from the router which gets it from Comcast. > Thirdly, is that your whole leases file? No. dhclient.eth0.leases has two entries, each of which has more info. They are identical but for the lines cited above. I don't know if it's supposed to have only one entry. [snip] > > Now, if you are getting you DHCP info from a router, well that is a > different issue. Does that Router support uPNP? If it does and you > have zeroconf and the avahi stuff installed, that might explain it. Ahh, the wonders of Google -- Universal Plug and Play? Yes, it does and it is enabled. I don't have zeroconf but do have the avahi daemon. > > There are many numerous ways of misconfiguration for "privately > controlled" DHCPDs. I really don't want to go into them at length > until we know it is the problem... which I'll hope it isn't. I hope it isn't, too.
