Hi On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Michael Biebl <mbi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2014-05-27 4:38 GMT+02:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl>: >> before looking at the code, a couple of general questions: >> - does the DHCP server have to be part of networkd? Isn't the job >> of acquiring addresses and giving out addresses separate and shouldn't >> two different processes be responsible? > > I have to agree with Zbigniew here. This looks like feature creep.
I strongly disagree. One major example is Wifi-P2P which requires a DHCP-Server for ad-hoc P2P connections. A network-daemon manages the local address-space, so it should also be responsible of assigning those ranges to an ad-hoc DHCP server. In most current network-solutions it is awfully hard to integrate ad-hoc DHCP networks. Yes, everyone can configure a static pre-assigned DHCP range, but that's not going to work with dynamically created networks. This includes p2p-connections like Wifi-P2P, but also stuff like tethering, virtual devices and containers. Besides, the DHCP-server implementation isn't that much more complex than the client-side. I mean ConnMan requires ~1000 lines for that, I haven't looked at Toms patches so far, though. I'd really like to hear why exactly you guys think this is feature-creep? Thanks David _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel