From: "Dave Saville" Received: from [192.168.100.201] (HELO mail.2rosenthals.com) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16) with ESMTP id 2275417 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:14:22 -0400 Received: from secmgr-va.2rosenthals.com ([162.83.95.194] helo=mail2.2rosenthals.com) by secmgr-ny.randr with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.43) id 1NroOS-0008Ux-PO for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:14:22 -0400 Received: from mail.deezee.org.uk ([81.187.184.98]:64423) by mail2.2rosenthals.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NroOI-00037Y-1t for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:14:11 -0400 Received: from bearpaw.bear.den (bearpaw.bear.den [192.168.0.201]) by mail.deezee.org.uk (Weasel v1.80) for ; 17 Mar 2010 08:14:05 -0000 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020204.4BA08F52.0257,ss=1,fgs=0 Message-ID: <000.50ec0e00a28ea04b.001@deezee.org> To: "OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List" Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:11:15 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: References: Priority: Normal User-Agent: PMMail/3.07 (os/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-GB; i386; ver 3.07.09.1506) X-Mailer: (Demonstration) PMMail (Alpha 2) 3.07.09.1506 for OS/2 Warp 4.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless] Hotel problem with Asus wl-330ge On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:36:17 -0400 Lewis G Rosenthal wrote: >Hey... >While likely *not* Dave's issue, remember that options 60 & 77 in >dhcpcd.cfg define vendor class & user class respectively. Some DHCP >servers are stubborn, and will refuse to properly issue params to >clients who do not identify themselves as "MSFT 5.0" or similar >(vs the default on OS/2 Warp 4.5 and eCS 1.x+, which is "IBMWARP_V4.1"). >In that case, try tweaking option 60 (at least), and possibly 77 (note >that 77 is typically dependent upon 60 being set, i.e., one would not >normally set option 77 without setting 60). (dhcpcd.cfg is located in >\MPTN\ETC, by default.) Right Lewis, I don't think it is the problem either - as the Artem worked. So I would think the same DHCP request would go out either way. -- Regards Dave Saville