Hi Simon,
Its exciting to hear that future DNSmasq versions can combine DHCPv6 with MAC
adresses. We ran into the same problem with our provisioning system but I found
a simple workaround which might be interesting for DNSmasq users with DHCPv6 who
dont want to work with the most bleeding edge
On 29/01/14 09:53, Shai Venter wrote:
Hello /Simon Kelley/
Referring to
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2013q1/006818.html
The thread mainly focuses on Operating System side of a IPv6 dhclient
functions.
But here are other aspects of the issue, more difficult to
On 02/12/2013 09:23 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/11/2013 04:51 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 16:42 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/11/2013 04:06 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
Fedora 17 and 18, until 0.9.7.997, left the DUID behavior up to
dhcleint, which appears to generate
On 02/10/2013 08:57 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
Best to test with is git master or the 0.9.7.995 release.
Too late ... I am running 0.9.7.997
So far things are working well (no problems).
I finally figured out that the easiest way to specify the duid-default
so that I would be using duid-LL is
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 11:48 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/10/2013 08:57 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
Best to test with is git master or the 0.9.7.995 release.
Too late ... I am running 0.9.7.997
I lied and I actually mean 0.9.7.997 :)
So far things are working well (no problems).
I
On 02/10/2013 09:09 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 11:01 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
snip
Unfortunately, what you have done is not going to scratch my itch!
First, I would like a bit of clarification. Is the DUID-UUID going to
be per system or per network interface? By per
On 02/11/2013 12:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
The option you're looking for*is* to set default-duid in the lease
file. That's exactly how you tell NM to use the DUID you want.
Otherwise, NM will generate the DUID-UUID.
See my other message. This appears to be not working.
Do you want me to
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 15:34 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/10/2013 09:09 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 11:01 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
snip
Unfortunately, what you have done is not going to scratch my itch!
First, I would like a bit of clarification. Is the
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 15:46 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/11/2013 12:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
The option you're looking for*is* to set default-duid in the lease
file. That's exactly how you tell NM to use the DUID you want.
Otherwise, NM will generate the DUID-UUID.
See my other
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 15:06 -0600, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 15:34 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/10/2013 09:09 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 11:01 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
snip
Unfortunately, what you have done is not going to scratch my itch!
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 16:29 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/11/2013 04:12 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
See my reply to your other mail about this; I see what you're saying
now, and I think we can push for having whatever generates machine-id
(often systemd) pull that information from
On 02/11/2013 04:06 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
Fedora 17 and 18, until 0.9.7.997, left the DUID behavior up to
dhcleint, which appears to generate a default DUID itself; but the
NetworkManager code will honor that existing DUID if it finds it in the
interface+connection specific lease file [1]. If
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 16:42 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/11/2013 04:06 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
Fedora 17 and 18, until 0.9.7.997, left the DUID behavior up to
dhcleint, which appears to generate a default DUID itself; but the
NetworkManager code will honor that existing DUID if it
On 02/11/2013 04:35 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 16:29 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/11/2013 04:12 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
See my reply to your other mail about this; I see what you're saying
now, and I think we can push for having whatever generates machine-id
(often
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 16:53 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/11/2013 04:35 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 16:29 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/11/2013 04:12 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
See my reply to your other mail about this; I see what you're saying
now, and I think
On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 12:02 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/09/2013 11:01 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
I need to look at the new code in NetworkManager to see what is being
done.
There is a testing candidate update out for NetworkManager and
networt-manager-applet (0.9.7.997) which
On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 11:01 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/08/2013 05:11 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 11:34 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/08/2013 10:39 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/08/2013 10:17 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 07/02/13 21:27, Gene Czarcinski
On 02/08/2013 05:11 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 11:34 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/08/2013 10:39 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/08/2013 10:17 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 07/02/13 21:27, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/07/2013 04:22 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
I was
On 02/09/2013 11:01 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
I need to look at the new code in NetworkManager to see what is being
done.
There is a testing candidate update out for NetworkManager and
networt-manager-applet (0.9.7.997) which addresses the bridge problem
among other issues.
I also updated
On 07/02/13 21:27, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/07/2013 04:22 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
I was googling around and found this:
Looks like I got it working. I must admit that I was going off of
information back when IPv6 and DHCPv6 first came out.
So it was my impression that in my DHCP
On 02/08/2013 10:17 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 07/02/13 21:27, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/07/2013 04:22 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
I was googling around and found this:
Looks like I got it working. I must admit that I was going off of
information back when IPv6 and DHCPv6 first came out.
On 02/08/2013 10:39 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/08/2013 10:17 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 07/02/13 21:27, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/07/2013 04:22 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
I was googling around and found this:
Looks like I got it working. I must admit that I was going off of
On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 11:34 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/08/2013 10:39 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/08/2013 10:17 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 07/02/13 21:27, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 02/07/2013 04:22 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
I was googling around and found this:
Looks like
On 02/07/2013 04:22 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
I was googling around and found this:
Looks like I got it working. I must admit that I was going off of
information back when IPv6 and DHCPv6 first came out.
So it was my impression that in my DHCP server configuration I had to
use the old
24 matches
Mail list logo
