dhcpcd-discuss

Hi Roy,
 
On Monday, October 20, 2014 12:27 PM, Roy Marples wrote:
> On 2014-10-18 01:16, Roy Marples wrote:
>> So that's the reason maybe? Defending the IPv4LL address triggered
>> an expiry?
>> I may have to setup a reverse ARP proxy to test this.
> 
> Fixed here:
> http://roy.marples.name/projects/dhcpcd/ci/77cc5e6fefbda2e0d03790a2cd1
> 447df385c2d18?sbs=0
> 
> Hopefully that fixes the state engine, can you test it please? :)

Well I see the EXPIRE state cycling now/again (is this what you mean?) ;).
 
> So the last question is how do we handle the ARP table?

Before this, and at the point where C2 is plugged back into the eth1, the eth1 interface has already released its original IPV4LL address. Why doesn't the client transition back into a state where it attempts to contact a DHCP server (before actually trying to defend the previously assigned IPV4LL address)?

>  From your earlier statements, it looks like you run dhcpcd per
> interface rather than once dhcpcd process for all interfaces. Is this true?

I don't think so. The network configuration has two interfaces defined - the first one is static and the second is configured for DHCP. Nothing special is done with dhcpcd aside from the configuration I sent earlier.

> Also, what kernel are you running?

3.10.47-rt50

> I thought that deleting the IP
> address would clear the ARP entry for it? 

I don't know what the proper semantics are for this in the locally configured multihome scenario (i.e., the interfaces ARP entries are likely cleared but I'm not sure about the semantics in relation to the other local interface and it's entries that identify the downed IPV4LL interface's hw address).

> If this is the case, how did
> the table fill up unless IPv4LL from other machines?

As you can see from what I've sent the entries are all for IPV4LL addresses *that match the hw address* of the local, IPV4LL interface. So these aren't entries for other machines, *just the other, local IPV4LL interface*.

Does what I've written above make sense?

Thanks,
-David

> Hopefully you can clarify all the above!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Roy