dhcpcd-discuss

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Roy Marples <roy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
> On 04/05/2016 15:19, Shahid Mahmood wrote:
> >     > Thoughts:
> >     > a) "require" the custom option with -Q. If no offer is received
> within
> >     > certain time, retry without -Q Side effect: delay for networks
> without
> >     > custom option.
> >     > b) Somehow fireup two parallel instances, one with -Q. Then deal
> with
> >     > the lease. (not even sure if this is possible)
> >     > c) Patch dhcpcd (would like to avoid this)
> >
> >     d) "preferred" option list, similar to -Q, but adds weight to a
> message.
> >     This option would cause dhcpcd to stall for reboot timeout seconds
> until
> >     DHCP DISCOVER is replied to with all preferred options.
> >     Upon timeout the received replies would be sorted by preferred option
> >     availability (not option value) and dhcpcd will then bind to this
> >     server.
> >     Once bound it stays bound and will not prefer a "beter" server until
> the
> >     lease is dropped (expired, carrier, release for example).
> >
> >     This probably won't be trivial to do in the very near future.
> >
> > So we can't do it today? Is that right? What about option a? Any issues
> > other than the delay?
> > (I deduce option b is out as anticipated)
>
> Today, no :)
>

(Just to clarify, I meant ask, "we can't do it with dhcpcd as of what we
have today")

Sadly I don't get paid to work on dhcpcd and spending my free time
> fixing issues reported by coverity is more important right now.
>
> Understood.


> I don't see any issue with option a other than I prefer option d :)
>
> Roy
>
I will choose option a pending a future update on option d.

-shahid