[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Melvin <melvin at sleepydragon dot net>
 To:  "John ." <jvoigt at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  Manuel Kasper <mk at neon1 dot net>, Frederick Page <fpage at thebetteros dot oche dot de>, m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Half second "feature" is also in DHCP server
 Date:  Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:25:57 -0500
John . wrote:

>>days after receiving an IP, it should still be valid and available up
>>until the expiration specified.  It sounds like in the current
>>implementation that IP address would be flagged as stale and subject for
>>recovery after only 3.5 days instead.  If I've misunderstood what's
>>actually happening then my apologies, but it certainly sounds like it's
>If monowall gives you a lease for 7 days, unless you reboot the
>firewall your IP will not expire until the 7 days are up.  The client
>simply renews it's lease long before it's set to expire.  Nothing is
>broken other than some folks understanding of what's happening.
>Monowall doesn't save leases across a boot.  Besides, if a machine is
>down for 5 days I'm not sure why it would need the same dynamic
>address it had before.  If it does for some reason then it should have
>a static assigned to it's MAC.
>The big question is: what problem is this (correct) dhcp behavior
>causing?  If you really need your client to only ask for a new address
>every 7 days then you should set the lease time to 14 days.
I didn't say I had a need for it.  If I have a need for a machine to get 
the same IP I set a reservation for it.  That was only to demonstrate 
what I understood was happening.  From your response it is apparent that 
isn't what is happening, and in that case I agree the action is 
correct.  As long as ANY request for renewal from the client is honored 
within the term of the lease, then the correct action has been taken.  
If that IP is available for issue to another machine after half the 
lease value then no it's broken.  Sounds to me like it works just fine 
and is doing what it should.  Sorry if you read my post to mean otherwise.

Whom computers would destroy they must first drive mad.