On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:00:38PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Nicolas Williams writes: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 04:25:48PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > > > Unfortunately, the server is not required to go along with the > > > client's suggestion, so your alternative (if the server didn't agree) > > > would be to just drop off the net anyway. > > > > But they generally do, yes? > > That might be going a bit far.
That's too bad. > [...] > > I don't think we should do it intentionally as a matter of design, but > I don't think that expecting an application to drop core or receive > SIGKILL is a normal part of design. I agree. > [...] > > However, we could change this. Shutting down dhcpagent could simply > return administrative control (and responsibility) to the system > administrator. This means that (by default) we'd remove the > IFF_DHCPRUNNING flag, but leave everything else in place. But then what would ever release the lease? Nothing, I guess. And if the lease was about to expire they that could be a problem, no? If you'll consider this approach then you might as well consider a configuration option to make dhcpagent set the lease expiration time to now + N minutes (even if the server doesn't support that; there's nothing wrong with trying). _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
