From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mm48J-0005w3-LS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:17:39 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EC5AAE07A7; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:17:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f211.google.com (mail-fx0-f211.google.com [209.85.220.211]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03F6E07A7 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:17:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm7 with SMTP id 7so676375fxm.34 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:17:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:reply-to:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=RInGv2HvF265vc8csUB4EbPXe6fKHggsSheSObAYPa8=; b=xXsJpK3I0ysTj0u2NMIO9bk1KZDJI6vpzuTCBlWWMPavFPssFkapZDbmPeSTA+w02A 6l1nKqe3QYRA+ygi5OMcC1PbZcnpV/mrar7e40ospWp+ws0w82aXMdZOnftqKQDXU/82 hhVUWjsqieG30lglREtrgvSLAVMI1bB/M0rIA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=XPWjbEH3SYrlPgZhiXAczcDrFwXOVw2Z9ntJPS0xi2YHVuDjJfbIqw6CpdP38NKKp5 QEsI2vMc6p+3T1MH9DHxgt2vcV1EMXn007Y+yGV1eKOUOBuHDALCweWnilWK+dVdAPnl sl5xUeQA6DHw2XOQsl8zkxugm9rtR7H+Qcsfc= Received: by 10.204.141.4 with SMTP id k4mr1961313bku.28.1252667856985; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lappy.study (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.3.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c28sm4041216fka.44.2009.09.11.04.17.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:17:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] timeouts with dhcpcd 5.1 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:17:22 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <30814.1252637366@ccs.covici.com> <5401.1252648337@ccs.covici.com> In-Reply-To: <5401.1252648337@ccs.covici.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart15478584.MmL2m0qsJx"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200909111217.33643.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 40373de2-769e-42a8-8674-dcca43bde172 X-Archives-Hash: f3b868605825744557cb997c9faf774a --nextPart15478584.MmL2m0qsJx Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 11 September 2009, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote: > However, when I put the -d, it didn't tell me anything except that > dhcpcd sent several discover packets and then said timeout, so my > original question still remains -- why a timeout with 5.1 with the same > dhcpcd.conf and no timeout with 4.0.13. It may be a bug. The trick is how do you establish who the bug belongs to?= =20 dhcpcd-5.1 or your router's firmware? I recall similar incident with my router and an older dhcpcd version (can l= ook=20 through the M/L for a URL if you need me to) whereby the MAC address sent b= y=20 dhcpcd was not being picked up by the router. The router was looking for=20 that info in the ID field or some such. Having had static IP addresses for= =20 my LAN machines meant that my PC would not be given the reserved IP address= =20 and then dhcpcd would eventually time out. My router's firmware was not=20 compliant with the respective RFC that dhcpcd was upgraded to. The fix I came up with was router specific, therefore I do not have a usefu= l=20 suggestion for your circumstances I'm afraid - other than: Try static IP address for your machine (use ifconfig to set this up and rou= te=20 to set up the gw). Try using a different dhcp client to see if the problem persists. Try updating your router's firmware just in case. =46ile a bug for dhcpcd-5.1 with your findings. PS. Other than testing is there a reason why you don't use a stable dhcpcd= =20 version? =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart15478584.MmL2m0qsJx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEUEABECAAYFAkqqMc0ACgkQVTDTR3kpaLYVhQCfcPtZKKaosG5rhpYHAdYCSOH/ 8DYAl0bjBpDqzFRFLYgT+8mK+FKhY/Y= =r2Aw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart15478584.MmL2m0qsJx--