[PATCH RFC v2 0/3] dhclient: add --prefix-len option
H. Peter Anvin
hpa at zytor.com
Wed Dec 2 20:41:40 UTC 2015
On December 2, 2015 12:20:37 PM PST, Shawn Routhier <sar at isc.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 11:25 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote:
>> On 12/02/15 11:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> I have the following questions with regards to the protocol and
>>> desired behavior:
>>> - The current patch will only emit a null prefix for a SOLICIT
>>> message, but are there other messages where a null prefix is also
>>> - The current patch specifies a global prefix length, but would it
>>> better if that prefix length was settable for each IA_PD IAID? In
>>> that case, what do people think of any of the following command
>>> syntaxes (where # is the number of bits):
>>> -P #
>>> The last one would break if it is possible for a purely numeric
>>> argument to follow a -P option on the current command line (I don't
>>> know if there are any systems that use numbers for interface names,
>> One final question: why is the t2 parameter of the IAADDR and
>> option set to t1 + (t1 / 2) for SOLICIT, mirroring the IA_NA/TA/PD
>> option, but t1 + 300 for REQUEST, RENEW, and REBIND? I have kept
>> behavior in this set as I wanted the first patch to have no
>> changes at all; if implemented properly it should behave exactly like
>> the old code.
>Thank you for your work on this feature. I’ll have to think about
>and am busy with other tasks right now so I’m not sure when I will have
>One item I did want to bring to your attention is that I have just
>a patch to handle getting IA_NAs and IA_PDs in the same message better.
>is from RFC7550 and can be seen in the sources from source.is.org. I
>this as this patch also changed the dhclient code and overlaps the
>are proposing in your patch.
I pulled the git repository as of last night, did that not include your change?
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
More information about the dhcp-workers