Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On 3/8/23 14:11, Marc Haber wrote: > They pulled the plug on relay and client from now to immediately, with > no obvious replacement on the relay side, and then announced EOL for > the server for end of 2022, leaving the world without the reference > implementation. that was unfortunate,

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Hi, On Wed, 2023-03-08 at 10:45 +0100, Philipp Hahn wrote: > Are you sure the *server* is still maintained? Sadly my quote from > got dropped, so here again: > > > ISC has announced the end of life for ISC DHCP as of the end of > > 2022. ISC will continue providing

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

El 08/03/23 a las 11:37, Philipp Hahn escribió: > Hello Santiago, > > Am 08.03.23 um 11:17 schrieb Santiago Ruano Rincón: > > El 08/03/23 a las 10:45, Philipp Hahn escribió: > > > Am 07.03.23 um 20:26 schrieb Ansgar: > > > > On Tue, 2023-03-07 at 11:55 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > > > On Mar

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 20:26:20 +0100, Ansgar wrote: >Only the client and relay are no longer maintained upstream. The server >is still maintained and there is no need to drop it from Debian. They pulled the plug on relay and client from now to immediately, with no obvious replacement on the relay

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Hello Santiago, Am 08.03.23 um 11:17 schrieb Santiago Ruano Rincón: El 08/03/23 a las 10:45, Philipp Hahn escribió: Am 07.03.23 um 20:26 schrieb Ansgar: On Tue, 2023-03-07 at 11:55 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Mar 07, Philipp Hahn wrote: Is it a good idea to keep it alive for another 2+

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Hi Philipp, El 08/03/23 a las 10:45, Philipp Hahn escribió: > Hello Ansgar, > > Am 07.03.23 um 20:26 schrieb Ansgar: > > On Tue, 2023-03-07 at 11:55 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > On Mar 07, Philipp Hahn wrote: > > > > Is it a good idea to keep it alive for another 2+ years in > > > >

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On Mar 08, Philipp Hahn wrote: > Do we do our users a service by keeping that dead horse alive for another 2+ > years? While being quite stable it had a steady stream of security issues: Yes, unless you know of other implementations with that features set. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Hello Ansgar, Am 07.03.23 um 20:26 schrieb Ansgar: On Tue, 2023-03-07 at 11:55 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Mar 07, Philipp Hahn wrote: Is it a good idea to keep it alive for another 2+ years in Debian-12-Bookworm or should it be removed now?

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On Tue, 2023-03-07 at 11:55 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Mar 07, Philipp Hahn wrote: > > > > Is it a good idea to keep it alive for another 2+ years in > > > > Debian-12-Bookworm or should it be removed now? > > > > https://packages.debian.org/source/bookworm/isc-dhcp > > I do not think that

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On Mar 07, Philipp Hahn wrote: > Is it a good idea to keep it alive for another 2+ years in > Debian-12-Bookworm or should it be removed now? > https://packages.debian.org/source/bookworm/isc-dhcp I do not think that it should be removed at this point, since there is a need for the complex

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Hello, Am 26.01.22 um 16:47 schrieb Bernhard Schmidt: About the client and server, if I am not wrong, about 3 years ago ISC dhcp was the only implementation able to configure DHCPv6 clients by their MAC addresses (thing that I needed at work). It is a pity that ISC is giving less love to it.

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Em 28/09/2021 03:29, Richard Laager escreveu: On 9/27/21 9:15 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Sep 28, Noah Meyerhans wrote: Should it be mentioned what the new recommended DHCP server for general use will be? ISC Kea? I haven't converted to it, but that's their replacement for dhcpd. I had

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Hi, About the client and server, if I am not wrong, about 3 years ago ISC dhcp was the only implementation able to configure DHCPv6 clients by their MAC addresses (thing that I needed at work). It is a pity that ISC is giving less love to it. That said, the EOL date is still TBA

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Hi, Thank you for considering netplan as the distro default in Debian! I am the upstream netplan maintainer (and downstream maintainer of the netplan.io package in Ubuntu) and would be happy to help with implementing this switch to netplan. Also, I do have a few thoughts to share wrt. this

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Hi Noah Am 28.09.21 um 00:48 schrieb Noah Meyerhans: For what it's worth, my preference would be transition to systemd-networkd with bookworm. Something I've been meaning to look into but never found the time for it is to have d-i support systemd-networkd. Anyone interested in hacking on

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 13:34:12 +0200, Vincent Blut wrote: >Le 2021-09-28 13:00, Marc Haber a écrit : >> On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 04:15:58 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> >On Sep 28, Noah Meyerhans wrote: >> >> For what it's worth, my preference would be transition to >> >> systemd-networkd with

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 18:49:31 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: >Make a change, reload your configuration, everything breaks. ifupdown2 >is smart and will converge to the new configuration. Network Manager can >restart and minimize impact. AFAIK, systemd-networkd is as dumb as >ifupdown and does not

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

❦ 28 September 2021 13:04 -05, Richard Laager: > Are you saying "everything breaks" as in: > A) the change is not applied (correctly) in the way that it would be if >the system was rebooted, or > B) the change is applied, but the human made a mistake in the config and >the change breaks

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On 9/28/21 11:49 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: ❦ 28 September 2021 11:16 -05, Richard Laager: As to what should be the distro default, I'm not sure I am convinced either way, but to argue the other side... There is some value in using netplan by default. Some random thoughts: [...] OTOH,

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

❦ 28 September 2021 11:16 -05, Richard Laager: >>> As to what should be the distro default, I'm not sure I am convinced >>> either way, but to argue the other side... There is some value in >>> using netplan by default. Some random thoughts: >> [...] >> OTOH, netplan is just an abstraction above

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On 9/28/21 8:44 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: ❦ 28 September 2021 01:29 -05, Richard Laager: As to what should be the distro default, I'm not sure I am convinced either way, but to argue the other side... There is some value in using netplan by default. Some random thoughts: [...] OTOH,

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

❦ 28 September 2021 01:29 -05, Richard Laager: > As to what should be the distro default, I'm not sure I am convinced > either way, but to argue the other side... There is some value in > using netplan by default. Some random thoughts: [...] OTOH, netplan is just an abstraction above existing

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

El 28/09/21 a las 13:01, Marc Haber escribió: > On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:48:25 -0700, Noah Meyerhans > wrote: > >It's worth noting also that ISC's DHCP client, packaged as > >isc-dhcp-client from the isc-dhcp source package, is considered EOL > >upstream. > > Same applies to the relay, doesn't it?

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Am 28.09.21 um 13:00 schrieb Marc Haber: On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 04:15:58 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Sep 28, Noah Meyerhans wrote: For what it's worth, my preference would be transition to systemd-networkd with bookworm. I think that a good default would be systemd-networkd for servers and

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Hi, Le 2021-09-28 13:00, Marc Haber a écrit : > On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 04:15:58 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > >On Sep 28, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > >> For what it's worth, my preference would be transition to > >> systemd-networkd with bookworm. > >I think that a good default would be

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:48:25 -0700, Noah Meyerhans wrote: >It's worth noting also that ISC's DHCP client, packaged as >isc-dhcp-client from the isc-dhcp source package, is considered EOL >upstream. Same applies to the relay, doesn't it? Greetings Marc -- --

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 04:15:58 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: >On Sep 28, Noah Meyerhans wrote: >> For what it's worth, my preference would be transition to >> systemd-networkd with bookworm. >I think that a good default would be systemd-networkd for servers and >NetworkManager for systems with Wi-Fi

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On 9/27/21 9:15 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Sep 28, Noah Meyerhans wrote: Should it be mentioned what the new recommended DHCP server for general use will be? ISC Kea? I haven't converted to it, but that's their replacement for dhcpd. I think that a good default would be systemd-networkd

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On Sep 28, Noah Meyerhans wrote: Should it be mentioned what the new recommended DHCP server for general use will be? > For what it's worth, my preference would be transition to > systemd-networkd with bookworm. I think that a good default would be systemd-networkd for servers and

Re: Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 08:25:14PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > The ISC DHCP suite has a lenghty list of bug reports that have been left > unattended. Some bugs date back to DHCP 3 or even earlier. > > Additionally, recent upstream

Bug#995189: RFH: isc-dhcp

Package: wnpp Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Control: affects -1 src:isc-dhcp -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 The ISC DHCP suite has a lenghty list of bug reports that have been left unattended. Some bugs date back to DHCP 3 or even earlier.