[CentOS] Re: ISC dhcpd and Vista clients

Scott Silva ssilva at sgvwater.com
Thu Jul 31 17:20:09 UTC 2008


on 7-31-2008 10:06 AM Glenn spake the following:
> At 12:52 PM 7/31/2008, you wrote:
>> on 7-30-2008 11:20 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
>>> Scott Silva wrote:
>>>> on 7-30-2008 2:53 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
>>>>> Scott Silva wrote:
>>>>>> Has anyone had good luck serving dhcp addresses to Vista clients 
>>>>>> that work reliably?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a test system and I can't seem to find out how to properly 
>>>>>> get dhcpd to always respond with broadcast instead of unicast 
>>>>>> since Vista won't honor unicast dhcp packets.
>>>>>
>>>>> My Vista (my wife's actually) has no problems with unicast dhcp 
>>>>> packets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stock dhcpd server in CentOS 5, and Vista Home. Worked without any 
>>>>> special config.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure that is the problem?
>>>> Not sure, but it is one of the suggested problems I see in many 
>>>> google searches. There are registry edits that help, but I don't 
>>>> want to have to do a bunch of edits when we get stuck with a hundred 
>>>> Vista machines. I have plenty of time, for now, to experiment. There 
>>>> are posts that say the subnet needs to be authoritative, but mine 
>>>> is. What happens is that the Vista system will not route outside the 
>>>> local subnet for more than 5 or 10 minutes.
>>> Do you mean that you do get an IP-number and default gateway from the
>>> dhcp server, but after 5 to 10 minutes, the default route setting gets
>>> lost?
>>> To me that would mean that the dhcp is working fine, but something 
>>> else kicks in after that time that messes up the dhcp settings.  Any 
>>> additional firewall software on the laptop, like Norton etc.
>>> Or can you relate the loss of routing to an action on the dhcp server,
>>> like lease renewing etc.
>> I think I am going to have to spend some more time on this. Maybe with 
>> a sniffer and some patience. The laptop just had Vista Ultimate 
>> because that is the version we acquired for testing, and our standard 
>> McAfee virus scanner. I will have to toss together a VM machine and 
>> try different combos of stuff. As a matter of fact I have a VM loaded 
>> on my laptop that I was playing with at home as it runs fine there. 
>> That way the only difference will be the change in  location. It is 
>> just dog slow, but for this test it doesn't matter that much.
>>
>> I'll have to look at the troubled machine and see if I can detect 
>> problems in the routing tables and such. I just have to figure out if 
>> the same commands do what I want between Vista and XP, or if I need to 
>> do some reading.
>>
> 
> My recent reading has lead me to believe that Windows Vista comes with 
> IPV6 enabled by default and can really generate some traffic if you do 
> not turn it off and possibly cause problems if your network 
> infrastructure does not support it. Is that possibly a problem?
> 
> Cheers,
> Glenn
I turned off IPv6 on that machine, but since it is in our other office, I 
won't get back to it until tomorrow to poke it some more.

-- 
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080731/c75df145/signature.bin


More information about the CentOS mailing list