| 1 |
I agree, the 60 second dhcp timeout is completely intolerable. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
2 seconds is too quick, my wireless network can take a few seconds when the |
| 4 |
first packet is sent out as it needs to load firmware into the cards memory. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
10 seconds is my vote, i've never seen a network take longer than that, unless |
| 7 |
the ethernet was unplugged or something was horribly wrong. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
As long as there is an option to change the timeout, I don't think we'll get |
| 10 |
many complaints. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Mark Dierolf |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
On Thursday 14 October 2004 8:04 am, Stefan Schweizer wrote: |
| 15 |
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:32:43 +0100, Daniel Drake <dsd@g.o> wrote: |
| 16 |
> > If I remember right, this was done for a short period of time. It caused |
| 17 |
> > problems. For example, I had "ntpdate" in my runlevel at the time, and it |
| 18 |
> > tried to start up directly after net.eth0. But net.eth0 hadn't completed |
| 19 |
> > the DHCP request in time, so my network interface was not ready to |
| 20 |
> > synchronise with a time server. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> We could solve this by wating one or 2 secs and then backgrounding the |
| 23 |
> dhcp request. |
| 24 |
> Not sure how feasible this is, though. |
| 25 |
> But I think its intolerable for the average dhcp laptop user to wait |
| 26 |
> 60 secs if he does not get a dhcp answer. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> -- |
| 29 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives