On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:23:10 -0700 Bob Proulx <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joe wrote: > > > > It doesn't work with Windows 8, which refuses to accept 127.0.1.1 as > > a valid DHCP server IP address, and to be honest I can't say I blame > > it. > > Excuse me? Why is your DHCP server using 127.0.1.1? How is that even > working at all? That is completely wrong. Something is wrong with > your dhcp server configuration. > Such as? What in terms of DHCP configuration determines what source IP address is used by dhcpd? DHCP is a bit special, operating on MAC addresses rather than IP addresses, so I suppose many clients don't care what IP address turns up. Windows 8 seems uncouth enough to expect a real IP address, or at least the same address as was used earlier. > I am using KVM on my machines. I am using 127.0.1.1 on my machines. > I use the ISC DHCP server as well as the dnsmasq server and I am not > seeing the problem you describe anywhere. What VM software are you > using? > None. All bare metal stuff. > > This is with Bind9 and the ISC DHCP server. And yes, 127.0.1.1 was > > being used as a source IP address during the DHCP negotiation, after > > the real server IP address had been used once. > > Something is wrong with your dhcp server configuration. Please say > more about it. How is your networking set up? Are you using a > network bridge? No. It's a two-NIC server running DHCP for the internal network, linked with Bind9, fixed IPs on the NICs. Supposedly. It works fine with XP, Win7, various Debians and Macbooks and a Humax TV recorder. And a Raspberry Pi running Wheezy Raspbian. No dice with Windows 8, which of course I put down to W8 being broken. But that machine picked up addresses perfectly well in other networks... What does a Windows DHCP server have that ISC dhcpd doesn't? Or a cheap DSL router, for that matter. When I got fed up, and W8 manual networking is a pain (who in God's name ever thought APIPA addresses were a good idea? The one way to *absolutely* *guarantee* that a computer won't operate in an existing network), I put a packet sniffer on it, and lo and behold, there were second and subsequent DHCP packets arriving with the offending source address, and no further discussion from the W8 end. Remove the hosts entry, the problem goes away, and that's where I stop trying to fix it. I cannot imagine why an Ethernet implementation would ever allow a source address of the 127. persuasion to be used other than on lo, so I'm not about to try to debug it. -- Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
