From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 14 19:15:58 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E637716A41F for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:15:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.orG) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [204.156.12.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA61843D55 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:15:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.orG) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE3E346B8B; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:15:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:16:06 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Frank Mayhar In-Reply-To: <1121368125.83653.12.camel@realtime.exit.com> Message-ID: <20050714201428.G35071@fledge.watson.org> References: <20050714182136.071B35D07@ptavv.es.net> <20050714192403.H35071@fledge.watson.org> <20050714185851.GE19351@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <1121368125.83653.12.camel@realtime.exit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems with OpenBSD dhclient X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:15:59 -0000 On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Frank Mayhar wrote: > On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 11:58 -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: >> I'm seeing this as well. I think we're going to need to handle wireless >> and wired interfaces differently since their links work differently. > > I tend to disagree with this view. In general, while wired connections > may often be more persistent than wireless connections, that's not > necessarily always true. It's certainly possible to move a system > between wired connections as well > > I think that it makes more sense for the configuration of the two types > to be the same, anyway, just for consistency. It's the same basic > problem that is being solved, and if the solution for wireless > interfaces is reasonably robust, it should work just fine for wired ones > as well. I reported a similar problem a year or so ago shortly after changes were committed to the old dhclient so that it dropped the IP address on an interface when the link went down. The problematic behavior had to do with a loose ethernet cable, which would have to be re-inserted. If the IP is left on the interface, connections will hang and recover. If the IP is removed, then applications will get socket errors due to using an IP address that is no longer available, closing TCP connections. One failure mode is clearly more desirable than the other in the environment I was using the system in (sitting on a couch). Robert N M Watson