Dave Voutila writes:
> Dave Voutila writes:
>
>> tech@,
>>
>> While migrating an existing -current vm to use dhcpleased(8), one of the
>> issues discovered was the dhcp/bootp handling built into vmd(8) for
>> local interfaces was improperly missing packets sent to the ethernet
>> address of the
Dave Voutila writes:
> tech@,
>
> While migrating an existing -current vm to use dhcpleased(8), one of the
> issues discovered was the dhcp/bootp handling built into vmd(8) for
> local interfaces was improperly missing packets sent to the ethernet
> address of the host-side tap(4) device.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 04:36:04PM -0400, Dave Voutila wrote:
>
> Florian Obser writes:
> > Our lease is however still valid, so everything "just works".
> >
> > Maybe the problem is with the send request command. I don't know yet
> > what to do with it. Maybe it should transition to INIT state.
Florian Obser writes:
> This might not be a problem in practice.
Agreed specifically on the renewal issue.
The subtle 1 line change to process all packets in the tx ring is a
different issue that so far nobody has reported observing.
>
> vmd(8) hands us a lease with "infinity" lease time.
This might not be a problem in practice.
vmd(8) hands us a lease with "infinity" lease time. This is expresed
as UINT32_MAX, i.e. 2^32-1. dhcpleased(8) does not handle infinity
explicitly, it's just a very long lease time (136 years).
When we configure the lease we enter the BOUND state. After
tech@,
While migrating an existing -current vm to use dhcpleased(8), one of the
issues discovered was the dhcp/bootp handling built into vmd(8) for
local interfaces was improperly missing packets sent to the ethernet
address of the host-side tap(4) device. (vmd(8) was only looking for
broadcast
