Patrick, I think I've been able to figure out some missing details about your VMware Workstation tests. For a proxyDHCP, I'm using dnsmasq. Could you try to confirm your test was the same basic setup? On VMware Workstation 10 with a VMHWv10 VM set to EFI firmware for x64, I've been able to get mixed results, depending on if a gateway is provided. With a VMHWv9 VM, I see what appear to be the issues you see. VMHWv10, NAT: Boot Service Discover (a BOOTP style request) sent to the wrong MAC address (MAC address of gateway) VMHWv10, Host-Only, 6.03: success VMHWv9, NAT: Same as VMHWv10 VMHWv9, Host-Only, 6.03: Syslinux appears deaf; no ARP response, no TFTP acknowledgement after receiving the first packet of a file request. VMHWv9, Host-Only, Commit 81eeaa3: Same as 6.03. -- -Gene
>>>Patrick, I think I've been able to figure out some missing details about your VMware Workstation tests.? For a proxyDHCP, I'm using dnsmasq.? Could you try to confirm your test was the same basic setup? On VMware Workstation 10 with a VMHWv10 VM set to EFI firmware for x64, I've been able to get mixed results, depending on if agateway is provided.? With a VMHWv9 VM, I see what appear to be the issues you see. VMHWv10, NAT: Boot Service Discover (a BOOTP style request) sent to the wrong MAC address (MAC address of gateway) VMHWv10, Host-Only, 6.03: success VMHWv9, NAT: Same as VMHWv10 VMHWv9, Host-Only, 6.03: Syslinux appears deaf; no ARP response, no TFTP acknowledgement after receiving the first packet of a file request. VMHWv9, Host-Only, Commit 81eeaa3: Same as 6.03. -- -Gene <<< Are you testing with the patch applied or without? As clients I'm using Workstation 10 VMs (32/64bit) and a real Toshiba notebook. When the client is a VM the DHCP server is VMware's, When the client is a real notebook the DHCP server is an external Netgear router. In any case the proxyDHCP is Serva. Best, Patrick
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote:>>>> > Patrick, I think I've been able to figure out some missing details > about your VMware Workstation tests. For a proxyDHCP, > I'm using dnsmasq. Could you try to confirm your test was the > same basic setup? > > On VMware Workstation 10 with a VMHWv10 VM set to EFI > firmware for x64, I've been able to get mixed results, depending on if agateway is provided. > > With a VMHWv9 VM, I see what appear to be the issues you see. > > VMHWv10, NAT: Boot Service Discover (a BOOTP style request) > sent to the wrong MAC address (MAC address of gateway) > > VMHWv10, Host-Only, 6.03: success > > VMHWv9, NAT: Same as VMHWv10 > > VMHWv9, Host-Only, 6.03: Syslinux appears deaf; no ARP > response, no TFTP acknowledgement after receiving the first packet of a > file request. > > VMHWv9, Host-Only, Commit 81eeaa3: Same as 6.03. > > -- > -Gene > <<< > > Are you testing with the patch applied or without? > As clients I'm using Workstation 10 VMs (32/64bit) and a real Toshiba notebook. > When the client is a VM the DHCP server is VMware's, When the client is a real > notebook the DHCP server is an external Netgear router. In any case the proxyDHCP is Serva. > > Best, > PatrickIt appears I was unclear about which I suspected as being similar to your tests, specifically VMHWv9 on the Host-Only network. It is possible that on Windows or with the Serva application, things act differently. Commit 81eeaa3 contains the variant of your patch that I thought I had talked about. https://github.com/geneC/syslinux.git git://github.com/geneC1/syslinux.git https://github.com/geneC/syslinux/commit/81eeaa3ea93ef124d4308f622ee29673e534dc0c I'm going to be trying your patch as-is next but I'm doubting it'll influence things. -- -Gene