NM runs dhclient with its own configs (from 'ps'):
/sbin/dhclient -d -sf /usr/lib/NetworkManager/nm-dhcp-client.action -pf /var/run/dhclient-eth0.pid -lf /var/run/dhclient-eth0.lease -cf /var/run/nm-dhclient-eth0.conf eth0
ifup runs dhclient with the defaults:
dhclient3 -e IF_METRIC=100 -pf /var/run/dhclient.eth0.pid -lf /var/lib/dhcp3/dhclient.eth0.leases eth0
Looking at the differences and named files, we can tell the following relevant things:
- NM uses a different script file, which is an ELF executable - NOT OK
- NM uses a different config file, which is created from /etc/dhcp3/dhclient.conf - OK
That gives us no simple solution to change NMs behaviour. I consider the functionality to be broken and a regression looking at the networking as a whole. After all, it worked before.
Now that it has been shown in detail, and it is easy reproduce, it would be nice to get some input from the devs? Confirm? Importance?
NM runs dhclient with its own configs (from 'ps'): NetworkManager/ nm-dhcp- client. action -pf /var/run/ dhclient- eth0.pid -lf /var/run/ dhclient- eth0.lease -cf /var/run/ nm-dhclient- eth0.conf eth0
/sbin/dhclient -d -sf /usr/lib/
ifup runs dhclient with the defaults: dhclient. eth0.pid -lf /var/lib/ dhcp3/dhclient. eth0.leases eth0
dhclient3 -e IF_METRIC=100 -pf /var/run/
Looking at the differences and named files, we can tell the following relevant things: dhclient. conf - OK
- NM uses a different script file, which is an ELF executable - NOT OK
- NM uses a different config file, which is created from /etc/dhcp3/
That gives us no simple solution to change NMs behaviour. I consider the functionality to be broken and a regression looking at the networking as a whole. After all, it worked before.
Now that it has been shown in detail, and it is easy reproduce, it would be nice to get some input from the devs? Confirm? Importance?