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. -- 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/20080731/491a7820/attachment-0005.sig>