[En-Nut-Discussion] RFC: Extending Network Configuration

[Michael Jones]

Hi!

Well yes, your later assumption is correct. The space is needed for storing
in general and for that time when DHCP is not used or available. For DNS it
is most likely that DHCP will deliver an Address, yet for SNTP it is not so
clear as this is a option that mostly has to be enabled on the DHCP server. 

Cu,
Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: en-nut-discussion-bounces at egnite.de
[mailto:en-nut-discussion-bounces at egnite.de] On Behalf Of Bob Shaver
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:15 PM
To: 'en-nut-discussion at egnite.de'
Subject: RE: [En-Nut-Discussion] RFC: Extending Network Configuration

Hi All,

> I'm currently working on adding a few things to Nut/OS. One being SNTP
> resolution via DHCP. In the course of this I have stumbled across a few
> details that require some changes.
>
> The first is that the NUTCONF structure will have to grow to add IP
> Addresses for DNS (two entries) and NTP. There is not much what we can do
> about NUTCONF growing - it was bound to happed one day - so anybody that
has
> data stored in the EEPROM right behind NUTCONF will have to shift that
data.

Possibly dumb comment from someone new to EtherNut, but....

DNS info should come as part of the DHCP packet (i.e. IP address, netmask, 
gateway and DNS), should it not?  So why should the EEPROM cfg be extended
to 
hold it if it is dynamic?

Or are you simply allowing for situations when DHCP does NOT provide this
info, 
or when DHCP is not used?


Bob.

_______________________________________________
En-Nut-Discussion mailing list
En-Nut-Discussion at egnite.de
http://www.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo.cgi/en-nut-discussion