DHCP server working in production now
Stephen R. van den Berg
srb at cuci.nl
Tue Aug 23 15:43:33 CEST 2011
Alan DeKok wrote:
>Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>> Alan DeKok wrote:
>>> Except that the DHCP server already works, and is used in production
>>> in multiple environments.
>> Is it? The existing code suggests otherwise.
> Stop being rude.
I was not being rude. I just expressed my genuine startledness.
> Go read the list archives. MULTIPLE people are using it an a
>production environment. Are they all lying?
I admit that I didn't read all the archives. I read the code first
and found numerous spots where it was marked "Does not work" and
a lot of the code broke due to different macros, and I found places
which simply said "Fill in code here". So I assumed that it's not
My sincere apologies for that assumption, if I'd known, I'd *not* have
deleted the DHCP-relay support.
>> b. Convoluted and non-transparent broadcast/unicast/IP decision logic.
>> I'm not saying it was/is wrong, but these matters are rather subtle,
>> and it is difficult to audit the existing code.
> Maybe that's true. But replacing it with incomprehensible code isn't
>a step forward.
I am going to make it comprehensible before resubmitting.
>> c. Too much tapdancing to avoid accessing the struct of the DHCP message,
>> which results in more convoluted code than necessary.
> While that might be true, you *removed* a lot of useful code. That
>code allowed the administrator to over-ride portions of the DHCP message.
It might not seem like that, but I don't think I corrupted this ability.
I want/need that flexibility myself, so I was very careful to preserve it.
>> Point a and b were important enough to start replacing parts, point c
>> was more or less collateral damage (fixed it as I went along).
> Then *please* submit multiple patches. Submitting a jumbo patch that
>changes everything makes it difficult to separate the good changes from
>the bad changes.
I normally always do, just not in this preview case.
>> I warned, that this is preliminary; this is not intended to be merged
>> in the existing codebase; I'm giving a preview, that's all.
> Ugly code means I don't review it. I just delete the message. I don'
>have time to try to figure out what the code is doing. Well formatted
>code means I can review it and provide productive feedback.
I understand that. I'm not offended by it. Feedback that it is
too timeconsuming to parse for review is good enough too.
>> It only breaks DHCP relaying, if that is necessary, I'll add it back.
>> I'm still puzzled why freeradius would want to relay itself, and not
>> delegate that functionality to a small program that does this quite
>> well already.
> *Policy* based relays.
> MAC A -> DHCP server B
> MAC X -> DHCP server Y
Interesting. Haven't seen those "in the wild" yet. But yes, I didn't
know people did this.
"What do I do when I see someone *extremely gorgeous*?
I stare, I smile, and when I get tired... I put the mirror down."
More information about the Freeradius-Devel