Re: [PATCH] Add dhcp timeout and anycast config options

On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 18:17 +0100, Stuart Ward wrote:
> Yes that would be useful as for 3G devices the data path can take a
> few seconds to stabilise and get the DHCP packets through after a
> connect is established. I was looking at how to change the DHCP
> time-out for these and perhaps get it to make a couple of requests
> rather than the default of useing a default IP address.

In what cases will 3G use DHCP?  AFAIK its either PPP (most cards) or
handled internally by the card (Option 3G driven by hso).  Is this a BT
PAN or USB ethernet connection to a phone that just bridges that to the
packet data network or something?  What phone model and service
provider, and how do you end up setting things like APN and preferred
bands in this case?


> -- Stuart Ward M +44 7782325143
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd luon net> wrote:
>         On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 06:30:35PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
>         > On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 12:28 +0100, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
>         > > Add configuration options for apply a dhcp timeout and
>         using DHCP using
>         > > anycast instead of broadcast.
>         >
>         > So; does the DHCP timeout change for the mesh devices at all
>         in the new
>         > scheme?  At what points might the DHCP timeout be something
>         other than
>         > the max or the min?
>         I'm not sure what you mean with max and min here. But the olpc
>         connection
>         algorithm is afaik to basically try out the three ``standard''
>         mesh frequencies
>         one by one using dhcp to see if there is a school server
>         around. In this case
>         the 45 second timeout is a bit long. Which is why the
>         possibility to set a
>         smaller timeout is desirable.
>         > I'd rather not have configurable DHCP timeouts in this
>         manner because for
>         > non-mesh cases, the DHCP timeout never needs to change.  If
>         we can set the
>         > DHCP timeout for mesh operations in the activation request
>         like the old code
>         > did, that would be preferable.
>         I guess i could do that. But that would mean mixing device
>         configuration and ip
>         configuration for mesh devices, which doesn't seem the right
>         way to me. I don't
>         really see any harm in exposing this functionality for all
>         devices (although
>         maybe we should clamp it to a certain min and max value)?
>          Sjoerd
>         --
>         It's very inconvenient to be mortal -- you never know when
>         everything may
>         suddenly stop happening.
>         _______________________________________________
>         NetworkManager-list mailing list
>         NetworkManager-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]