On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 09:27:12AM -0500, Tim Heckman wrote: > Andrew, > > Thank you for explaining the policy on your policy being no policy. :p
No worries :-) > But in all seriousness. I completely forgot about the hooks that can be > used for DHCP and I entirely agree this makes more sense to do it this way. > Thanks for the explanation. No worries also :-) > If you are State-side I hope you have a great Thanksgiving! Thanks, you too. I've actually been poking at this some more, and it turns out I've made a grave error in assuming that by not requesting a particular option you don't get it anyway. It turns out in testing, that even not requesting the host-name option, if it's set in the server, the client seems to get it, so this totally blows up my grand plans of telling people who don't like the hostname setting behaviour to just not request the hostname, so I have to revisit everything. regards Andrew
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
