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/attachment-0005.sig>