Re: DHCP support

[Neal H. Walfield]

At Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:44:00 +0200,
Marco Gerards wrote:
> 
> Roland McGrath <roland@frob.com> writes:
> 
> >> Roland McGrath <roland@frob.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> >> The most important part of the patch is setting up the route, for
> >> >> which no interface or utility exists.
> >> >
> >> > There is -g.
> >> 
> >> Which sets the gateway, how would that help?
> >
> > You said there was no existing facility for setting routes, which is what
> > -g does.  If you have an option to set the route in a way different from
> > what you can do with -g now, that still has nothing per se to do with DHCP.
> > Options are about what they do, not why you want that done.
> 
> Right, but -g does not set the route like we need it for DHCP.  I
> understand if you do not like the name of the option, but that does
> not make it useless.

I think Roland might be suggesting that you overload the meaning of
-g.  Thus when the address is 0.0.0.0, instead of setting the default
gateway as -g should do, you do something special.  To me, that tastes
just as bad as using --dhcp: -g has a meaning and I think that is
inconsistent with the type of route one sets when using dhcp.