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

Re: isc-dhcpd vs udhcpd

On 23.10.2017 09:36, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> while revising bind9 udebs, KiBi suggested that non-Linux architectures
> might be using isc-dhcpd instead of udhcpd due some problems and it
> might be a good idea to revise the decision now that we have a busybox
> maintainer?

Ubuntu has used dhclient for a long time now in d-i. I think there are
at least two parts to it: a) consistency across architectures - it is
weird to support two completely different implementations and b)
actually use the same implementation than the installed system would
rather than something embedded that has less features.

I recall times at work where we had severe issues with dhclient not
staying around in the background refreshing the lease. I have no idea if
this is still the case, I just recall that -1 behavior was kind of a
mess. Back then we bumped the lease duration. If picking udhcpc means
that we can address such issues more easily, that's better.

At the same time people know how to configure dhclient and can use a
similar config as in the installed system. My understanding is that
udhcpc has essentially no options at all (like sending additional DHCP

netcfg also did not receive that much love in recent times and I wonder
if something more integrated wouldn't be better than the hacks layered
on top of each other to make it work we have today. But at the same time
I know that something modern like systemd-networkd won't work for d-i
either because of architecture consistency. :/

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Reply to: