On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Thu, 23.10.14 13:24, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
>
>> > Trying unicast, waiting some time and then trying broadcast, if a DHCP
>> > offer
>> > is not sent within that time limit, seems like a fair thing to do. My 2
>> > cents
On Thu, 23.10.14 07:15, Marcel Holtmann (mar...@holtmann.org) wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Trying unicast, waiting some time and then trying broadcast, if a DHCP
> offer
> is not sent within that time limit, seems like a fair thing to do. My 2
> cents.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, it seems thi
Hi Lennart,
>> Trying unicast, waiting some time and then trying broadcast, if a DHCP
>> offer
>> is not sent within that time limit, seems like a fair thing to do. My 2
>> cents.
>
> Yeah, it seems this is what we should do. I guess it makes sense to
> make RequestBr
Hi Tom,
Trying unicast, waiting some time and then trying broadcast, if a DHCP
offer
is not sent within that time limit, seems like a fair thing to do. My 2
cents.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it seems this is what we should do. I guess it makes sense to
>>> make RequestBroadcast=yes|no|aut
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Thu, 23.10.14 13:24, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
>
>> > Trying unicast, waiting some time and then trying broadcast, if a DHCP
>> > offer
>> > is not sent within that time limit, seems like a fair thing to do. My 2
>> > cents
Yes, also one would like to avoid broadcasting as much as possible.
On Thursday, October 23, 2014, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Thu, 23.10.14 13:24, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no ) wrote:
>
> > > Trying unicast, waiting some time and then trying broadcast, if a DHCP
> offer
> > > is not sent wit
On Thu, 23.10.14 13:24, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
> > Trying unicast, waiting some time and then trying broadcast, if a DHCP offer
> > is not sent within that time limit, seems like a fair thing to do. My 2
> > cents.
>
> Yeah, it seems this is what we should do. I guess it makes sense
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Camilo Aguilar
wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 22, 2014, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22.10.14 20:49, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 22.10.14 18:16, Tom G
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Wed, 22.10.14 20:49, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no ) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Lennart Poettering
> > > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22.10.14 18:16, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no )
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi guys,
> > >>
> > >>
On Wed, 22.10.14 20:49, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 22.10.14 18:16, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
> >
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> I finally got around to have a look at this. I can reproduce the
> >> problem, and
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Wed, 22.10.14 18:16, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I finally got around to have a look at this. I can reproduce the
>> problem, and for me a workaround is to set RequestBroadcast=yes in the
>> DHCP section in
On Wed, 22.10.14 18:16, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I finally got around to have a look at this. I can reproduce the
> problem, and for me a workaround is to set RequestBroadcast=yes in the
> DHCP section in the .network file for your host0 interface in the
> container. Doe
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Leonid Isaev wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 04:56:55PM -0700, James Lott wrote:
>>> Actually, the reason I am using dhcpcd fro mthe command line is as a
>>> debugging
>>> measure, because I ori
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 04:56:55PM -0700, James Lott wrote:
>> Actually, the reason I am using dhcpcd fro mthe command line is as a
>> debugging
>> measure, because I originally setup a .network file for this interface to
>> attempt t
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 04:56:55PM -0700, James Lott wrote:
> Actually, the reason I am using dhcpcd fro mthe command line is as a
> debugging
> measure, because I originally setup a .network file for this interface to
> attempt to allow systemd-networkd to handle acquiring the DHCP lease.
Hi Leonid!
> I asked because you could try and see if networkd can acquire a lease by
> itself, without dhcpcd (I don't expect it to).
Actually, the reason I am using dhcpcd fro mthe command line is as a debugging
measure, because I originally setup a .network file for this interface to
attempt
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 08:14:55PM -0700, James Lott wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There is no .network file for the bridge. Systemd-networkd is currently only
> in
> charge of setting up the interface. As you can see from the provided output
> in
> my original email, I am running the dhcpcd servic
Hello,
There is no .network file for the bridge. Systemd-networkd is currently only in
charge of setting up the interface. As you can see from the provided output in
my original email, I am running the dhcpcd service directly from the command
line (the output from each run of the dhcpcd service
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:16:03PM -0700, James Lott wrote:
> However, when I try to acquire a dhcp lease through the bridge
> interface, I am unable to do so. Removing the bridge interface and re-adding
> it using brctl (as well as its vlan member) then allows me to gain a lease.
>
> Detai
Hello!
With some help from the kind people on this list, I was able to get my basic
network interfaces up and runnign with systemd-networkd. Now I've moved on to
playing with some slightly more complex setups, and have run into some issues
that as far as I can tell may be bugs (but I'm not quit
20 matches
Mail list logo
