unsubscribe

[Adam Wolfe]

unsubscribe
On 07/16/2013 07:00 AM, dhcp-hackers-request at lists.isc.org wrote:
> Send dhcp-hackers mailing list submissions to
> 	dhcp-hackers at lists.isc.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-hackers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	dhcp-hackers-request at lists.isc.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	dhcp-hackers-owner at lists.isc.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of dhcp-hackers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. DHCP relay: multiple interfaces problem. (Oleg Gvozdev)
>     2. Re: Patch for opensolaris builds of isc-dhcpd 4.2.5-P1 fixing
>        DLPI	for crossbow VNICs (Aurelien ROUGEMONT)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 19:51:37 +0400
> From: Oleg Gvozdev <jktu17 at gmail.com>
> To: dhcp-hackers at lists.isc.org
> Subject: DHCP relay: multiple interfaces problem.
> Message-ID:
> 	<CANV1Ld-N75riyPY4-3TZFMTfEF+Ph4GFRgeriQJ8VKbgei25cQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello.
>
> I'm using ISC DHCP package, 4.2.5-P1 version. I have a problem with
> dhcrelay when using more than one "-i" options.
>
> 1.I have such network scheme:
> CLIENTS(net0)<--->RELAY(net0-net1)<--->DHCP_SERVER(net1)
>
> 2. Dhcp server properly configured and running
>
> 3. Dhcp-relay run as this: *dhcrelay -i eth1 -i eth0 10.0.1.2*, where eth0
> is net0, eth1 is net1, 10.0.1.2 - is dhcp server IP.
>
> 4.(BAD):  When clients try to get lease, relay says: Forwarded BOORREQUEST
> for ...MAC... to 10.0.1.2 and request realy forwarded to CLIENT(!!!)
> through eth0 iface. And, of couse, no lease is got.
>
> 5.(GOOD): Now if we run relay as is:* dhcrelay -i eth0 -i eth1 10.0.1.2  *-all
> is ok, request is now forwarded to SERVER through eth1 iface.
>
> I've looked in code and saw, that (i use USE_SOCKETS) in line 724 in file
> realy/dhcrelay.c such line ,which send request:
>
> if (send_packet((fallback_interface ? fallback_interface : interfaces),
> NULL, packet, length, ip->addresses[0], &sp->to, NULL) < 0) ....
>
> I've not use fallback_interface, so the 1st param to send_packet() is
> "struct interface_info *interfaces" array. Then send_packet() just use
> sendto(fd,...), where fd - is descriptor of 1st element(1st interface) of
> "interfaces" array. Also I use SO_BINDTODEVICE, so send_packet() writes to
> different interfaces depending on the order of them in command line , and
> in unpredictable order if i do not use "-i" at all.
>
> So, behaviour of dhcrelay is different depending on the order of "-i"
> params..
>
> *Is it normal? What do you suggest in such situatuion?
> *
> Thanks.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-hackers/attachments/20130715/03c1f42d/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:31:56 +0200
> From: Aurelien ROUGEMONT <beorn at gandi.net>
> To: sscdvp at gmail.com
> Cc: dhcp-hackers at lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: Patch for opensolaris builds of isc-dhcpd 4.2.5-P1 fixing
> 	DLPI	for crossbow VNICs
> Message-ID: <51E5130C.4070304 at gandi.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 07/13/2013 09:44 PM, sscdvp at gmail.com wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Thank you for sharing patch to the community.
>> If you want the patch to be included in ISC DHCP mainline code, you
>> probably should consider the following:
>> 1. ISC DHCP 4.x codebase has been switched to socket interface usage
>> instead of DLPI for Solaris OE (I don't remember the version but you
>> could find it in ISC DHCP changelog).
>> 2. the patch could be reworked for compatibility with older Solaris
>> versions like 8,9,10 because it is obvious they have no such path /dev/net.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Serghei
> Thanks for your input, i will do the required changes asap and send the
> modified version.
>
> Regards,
>
> Aur?lien
>
>