| 1 |
Am Fri, 06 Mar 2015 21:35:45 +0200 |
| 2 |
schrieb Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 06/03/2015 20:45, Marc Joliet wrote: |
| 5 |
> > First of all, thanks to everybody who responded so far. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I wanted preface my reply to Alan by mentioning that the local sysadmin made |
| 8 |
> > changes to the DHCP server that appear to have worked around whatever the issue |
| 9 |
> > is. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > I don't fully understand the error analysis (something to do with the DHCP |
| 12 |
> > client reaching a particular state and sending DHCP packets that something |
| 13 |
> > in-between it and the DHCP server doesn't like and that might result in vendor |
| 14 |
> > dependent behaviour), but what the DHCP server now does is tell the client to |
| 15 |
> > use the broadcast address as the DHCP server address (which is weird, because |
| 16 |
> > the DHCP clients always switch to the broadcast address after a timeout, but of |
| 17 |
> > course I'm no DHCP expert). The affected PCs have been working normally all |
| 18 |
> > day today. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> In light of what you say below: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I'd be interested to hear what your sysadmin has to say; dhcp is one of |
| 24 |
> those things that JustWork(tm) - it uses regular tcp and nothing funny |
| 25 |
> about it at all. The only thing normally between your NIC and the dhcp |
| 26 |
> server is a switch, so that's what I'd be looking at. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That's also why I was confused about the whole thing and why I originally |
| 29 |
thought that it was either a power management issue or some sort of network |
| 30 |
problem. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I'll see if I can ask when I'm there again next week. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
[...] |
| 35 |
> I wasn't aware you had e1000e hardware - those are about as reliable as |
| 36 |
> they come. I've used many of them and never had the slightest trouble at |
| 37 |
> all. By all means study up on firmware and driver options - if you don;t |
| 38 |
> know much about that area it's very illuminating to find out more. But |
| 39 |
> based on experience I'd say the chances of finding an oddity with e1000e |
| 40 |
> are slim, and I'd be looking at a misconfigured switch. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
That's pretty much what the sysadmin said, too, when I asked what he thought |
| 43 |
of the "power management issue" idea. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> There are some strange switches out there that let you make crazy |
| 46 |
> configuration, like eg blanket drop all broadcast traffic on one or more |
| 47 |
> ports. That's where I'd be looking first. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Yeah, that agrees with my instinct that it's most something to do with the |
| 50 |
switch. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
Marc Joliet |
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we |
| 56 |
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup |
Archives