From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon,  2 Oct 2000 16:32:15 +0200
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] il: no success with DHCP
Message-ID: <20001002163214.D11900@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <200010021421.e92ELrH22613@eve.speakeasy.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <200010021421.e92ELrH22613@eve.speakeasy.net>; from anothy@cosym.net on Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 10:16:58AM -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 137ddd10-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 10:16:58AM -0400, anothy@cosym.net wrote:
>
> //Do I need another machine with DHCP service?
>
> yes. the file server does _only_ services 9p requests.
> anything beyond that, like dhcp, tftp, authentication,
> and you've got to be running a CPU server, or make
> other accomidations.

I can confirm this: I use NetBSD with ISC dhcpd (thanks, Ted Lemon) to
start up even the compute and file servers.  Which brings me to a
question I have been meaning to ask Presotto about: the vendor values
he gave me worked fine until I upgraded to the latest version of
NetBSD and, presumably, a later version of ISC dhcpd.  For some
reason, they are no longer understood by the kernel.  They used to be:

	option vendor-encapsulated-options 80:04:c0:60:20:86:81:04:c0:60:20:85;

and I can't find any documentation to instruct me how I should change
them.  I guess I should join the dhcpd mailing list and ask there, but
I really have only one query :-(

++L