|
From: <ja...@Mc...> - 2002-07-13 03:21:37
|
I like the idea. In LTSP we always depend on a filename being sent. Jim McQuillan ja...@Lt... On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Ken Yap wrote: > >Ken for 5.2 would it make sense to always require a non-null filename? > >In most cases this would remove the need for REQUIRE_VCI_ETHERBOOT, > >and the setup is some simpler. > > Wait, I think I understand what you're trying to say. You mean take the > absence of a filename (or perhaps of a useful IP also) to indicate a > DHCP server we should ignore and wait for another reply from a DHCP > server we control. Our DHCP server would still have to be careful not to > assign IPs to clients we don't care about, but this can be done by > looking for the Vendor Indentifier of Etherboot which is always sent or > by using MAC addresses. That sounds reasonable. I think the fallback to > /tftpboot/kernel is marginally useful anyway. What is the experience of > other developers? If it's a good idea, it can even go into 5.0.7. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Gadgets, caffeine, t-shirts, fun stuff. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Etherboot-developers mailing list > Eth...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/etherboot-developers > -- |
