ority in replies to 255 (the maximum) instead of 0
> (the minimum).
>
>
>
> you definitely have multiple dhcp servers, so this option is misused under
> your circumstances, not?
>
>
>
> Best Regards, Vladislav Grishenko
>
>
>
> *From:* Kevin Benton [mailto:b
?id=e2318bbad786d6f9ebff704490246bfe52e588c0
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Albert ARIBAUD
wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Le Mon, 1 Jun 2015 02:02:27 -0700, Kevin Benton a
> écrit :
>
> > I understand, but that eliminates the whole 'correcting rouge dhcp
> offers'
, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Vladislav Grishenko
wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Ignoring all naks – would be, but the fix is different.
>
> That fix ignores all naks except from the selected/requested server only,
> it’s ok.
>
>
>
> Best Regards, Vladislav Grishenko
>
>
>
>
e the parsing code.
Cheers
--
Kevin Benton
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
onse is from a rogue server and NAKs since it didn't send
> out
> > the offer?
> >
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Second dnsmasq assume the client request is to another server and responds
> with NAK in authoritative mode.
> The root of loop issue is in that busybox 1.20.x udhc
