Hi, Do we also need to drop the route within dhcp_lease_lost()?
Thanks On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Tom Gundersen <t...@jklm.no> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Brandon Philips <bran...@ifup.co> wrote: >> This is a better approach that was suggested by Mike and ack'd by Tom. >> >> Some DHCP servers gives you a netmask of 255.255.255.255 so the gateway is >> not >> routable. Other DHCP client implementations look through the existing routes >> to >> figure out if they should add an explicit host route. See below for a link. >> >> However, it makes sense to just create the route explicitly whether it is >> needed or not since it is explicit, makes the dhcp route entries independent >> of >> other entries and saves us from knowing the state of the kernel tables. >> >> After patch route table on a machine with a network (common case): >> >> default via 10.0.2.2 dev ens3 >> 10.0.2.0/24 dev ens3 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.2.15 >> 10.0.2.2 dev ens3 scope link >> >> After patch route table on a machine without a network (this case): >> >> default via 10.240.0.1 dev ens4v1 >> 10.240.0.1 dev ens4v1 scope link >> >> The code from dhcpcd that works around this issue is on line 637. >> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/dhcpcd/+/master/configure.c > > Applied. Thanks a lot for doing this work! > > Cheers, > > Tom > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
