On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:25:49PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 13:43 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Bill McGonigle
> > wrote:
> > > On 08/03/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > >> The Ubuntu NM maintainer has posted a WIP patch that
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 13:43 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> > On 08/03/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> The Ubuntu NM maintainer has posted a WIP patch that makes NM say it's
> >> connected immediately if at least one of IPv4 or IPv
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Nathaniel McCallum
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
>> On 08/03/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> The Ubuntu NM maintainer has posted a WIP patch that makes NM say it's
>>> connected immediately if at least one of IPv4 or IPv6 com
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On 08/03/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> The Ubuntu NM maintainer has posted a WIP patch that makes NM say it's
>> connected immediately if at least one of IPv4 or IPv6 completes.
>> Currently if both are enabled, NM won't say it's conn
On 08/03/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> The Ubuntu NM maintainer has posted a WIP patch that makes NM say it's
> connected immediately if at least one of IPv4 or IPv6 completes.
> Currently if both are enabled, NM won't say it's connected until both
> are done (and result in either success or
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 00:09 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 17:12 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> > On 08/01/2011 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > It seems like there's which has to happen after
> > > wake before NM even attempts to re-establish a connection, and that's
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 17:12 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > It seems like there's which has to happen after
> > wake before NM even attempts to re-establish a connection, and that's
> > the longest delay, at least for me. Anyone know what that some
On 08/01/2011 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It seems like there's which has to happen after
> wake before NM even attempts to re-establish a connection, and that's
> the longest delay, at least for me. Anyone know what that something is,
> and whether it can be optimized?
I don't know what y
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 17:49 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> What's unique about the method described there is that the Mac
> configures the interface with the same IP address it previously had if
> the lease is still valid, while NetworkManager waits for the DHCP server
> confirm the lease. So we co
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 12:10 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 19:41 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> > Dan, that works on wireless networks. On wired networks the ARP
> > technique determines *which* of the valid leases you should attempt to
> > restore. So on a wired network you
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 19:41 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> Dan, that works on wireless networks. On wired networks the ARP
> technique determines *which* of the valid leases you should attempt to
> restore. So on a wired network you:
Right, which is why I noted a couple of times about wifi spe
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:35:29AM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:30:30PM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > On 07/30/2011 06:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > What's unique about the method described there is that the Mac
> > > configures the interface with the same IP add
On 07/31/2011 12:35 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:30:30PM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 07/30/2011 06:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> ...
>>> So we could presumptuously configure the interface
>>> with the previous address from the lease and then only tear it down
>>>
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 16:37 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> IIRC connman (i.e. NM's competition) can do the ARP magic, too.
I don't think so. ConnMan doesn't remember the last DHCP setup at all,
and doesn't even set the DHCP_REQUESTED_IP option — so it gets
gratuitously changed IP addresses eac
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 17:49 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> NM already keeps DHCP information around based on the network you're
> connecting to, so we don't need to ARP a bunch of servers just to
> determine whether the DHCP server we wanted is still there.
That's fine on wireless, but not so usef
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:30:30PM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/30/2011 06:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > What's unique about the method described there is that the Mac
> > configures the interface with the same IP address it previously had if
> > the lease is still valid, while NetworkMan
On 07/30/2011 06:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> NM already keeps DHCP information around based on the network you're
> connecting to, so we don't need to ARP a bunch of servers just to
> determine whether the DHCP server we wanted is still there. dhclient is
Cool - so is NM already pretty opt
Dan, that works on wireless networks. On wired networks the ARP technique
determines *which* of the valid leases you should attempt to restore. So on
a wired network you:
1. ARP the known DHCP server IPs to discover the subnet.
2. ARP the IP from the valid lease on that subnet to avoid collision.
3
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 11:46 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/30/2011 10:37 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Sat, 30.07.11 10:31, Genes MailLists (li...@sapience.com) wrote:
> >
> http://cafbit.com/entry/rapid_dhcp_or_how_do
> >>>
>
> >
> > IIRC connman (i.e. NM's competition) can d
On 07/30/2011 10:37 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sat, 30.07.11 10:31, Genes MailLists (li...@sapience.com) wrote:
>
http://cafbit.com/entry/rapid_dhcp_or_how_do
>>>
>
> IIRC connman (i.e. NM's competition) can do the ARP magic, too.
>
> Lennart
>
Seems like a pretty reasonable t
On Sat, 30.07.11 10:31, Genes MailLists (li...@sapience.com) wrote:
> >> http://cafbit.com/entry/rapid_dhcp_or_how_do
> >
>
> Hmm ... the complaint of changing IP does not seem to make sense - as I
> read the article - the MAC simply remembers server info and instead of a
> blind dhcp (which cau
On 07/30/2011 04:48 AM, Ryan Rix wrote:
...
> Reading the hackernews comments on it makes me wonder if this is a very good
> idea. It may work for people in certain usecases, but in the case of Fedora
> probably not so much
>
> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2756952
> http://news.ycombina
On Fri 29 July 2011 13:10:34 Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> Interesting message in another list.
>
> for me fedora is very slow to get dhcp address.
Reading the hackernews comments on it makes me wonder if this is a very good
idea. It may work for people in certain usecases, but in the case of Fe
Interesting message in another list.
for me fedora is very slow to get dhcp address.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sridhar Dhanapalan
Date: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM
Subject: Rapid DHCP
To: OLPC Devel , OLPC Australia list
Here's an article that tries to explain why Mac
24 matches
Mail list logo
