[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[K12OSN] DHCP on a different port..... thanks.



Hi Folks,

Thanks for your help Jim, Huck, David, and Chuck.

I'll be using etherboot images. AFAIK I can get these burnt onto
bootroms. 
Is this correct? 
If so then PXE is a moot point. 

I know how to put etherboot onto floppy.
I have toyed with the idea of IDE to CF adaptors and putting 
etherboot on CF.
Another altenative is etherboot CD's.

In this case I will probably use the old HDD's in the machines which are
all less than 1GB.

I don't have access to the MS DHCP server. Abut two weeks ago I asked
the list about passing requests through the MS DHCP server to the LTSP
DHCP server.

The sysadmin I am dealing with clearly stated he doesn't want anything
to disrupt or change the current infrastructure. He uses Ubuntu at home
so introducing Linux isn't a problem. 

This installation has to be rock solid in order to change current
negative perceptions of Linux that upper level management has.

The network is running class B /16 addresses.

Thanks for your time.

Bert

======================================
> - I could run the LTSP DHCP server on a network with an MS DHCP server
> 
> - There wouldn't be any conflicts between the two DHCP servers
> 
> - MS clients would get their IP address from the MS DHCP server, and 
>   any LTSP terminals would get their IP address from the LTSP server
> 
> By creating custom boot rom images on the Rom-O-Matic website that use
> the port I have chosen, the LTSP thin clients will connect to the Linux
> DHCP server, NOT the MS DHCP server.

> Therefore, in THEORY, I could put a single nic LTSP server into an
> existing MS network without any disruption to their current
> infrastructure.
> 
> If this is the case it fits the criteria set by someone who is
> investigating the use of LTSP, and has approached me for help.
> 
> 
> Is my theory sound or have I missed something.


> From: Jim McQuillan <jam mcquil com>

> Your theory is good.  EXCEPT, it won't work with PXE bootroms.  It will 
> ONLY work with Etherboot bootroms.
> 
> The reason is, there's no way to tell PXE to use a different port.
> 
> If you can live with that, then you can use the alternate port method.
> 
> Jim McQuillan
> jam Ltsp org


> From: Huck <dhuckaby hvja org>
> Theory is sound given the following layout:
> 
> MS-DHCP server  ------>  MS-CLIENTS
>    |
>    |
>   V
> eth1
> K12LTSP  eth0   -------> LTSP clients
>             ltsp-dhcp active on THIS NIC only
> 
> I surely wouldn't attempt this with a single NIC setup(I'm faint of 
> heart)...
> the 10/100 nic for the ETH1 is cheap enough to do a dual nic setup..
> --Huck


> From: Jim McQuillan <jam mcquil com>

> The whole point of his theory was that he wanted a single NIC setup.
> 
> It works fine, nothing to be scared of.
> 
> there's no way the MS clients will get an address from a Linux DHCP 
> server configured for a port other than 67/68
> 
> And the thin clients won't get a response from the MS server.
> 
> Jim.
> 

> From: Huck <dhuckaby hvja org>
> Ah, I see said the blind man.
> although it seems like it'd have a greater potential for bandwidth 
> bottleneck'n...
> 
> --Huck


> From: "David Trask" <dtrask vcsvikings org>
> Yep...you're right....except PXE won't work, but if that's not an issue
> you should be fine.  :-)


> From: cliebow midmaine com
> something tells me you have no access to ms dhcp..but you could use ms
> dhcp to pass everything including Netvista (except macintosh ibook info
> which i cant get working yet(though the bondi works fine))with winders
> dhcp.
> the only mystery we discovered was some weird print problem when option 60
> was configured globally for the entire subnet..chuck
> 



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]