What do you mean by 'overlay/etc/rc.local'? I have used 2 backup configurations, one with iptables rules in rc.local, and one with no uncommented text, other than 'exit 0'. Both show the same problem. I have previously operated this Mac with a wired connection. I was thinking this was a 10.8.5 problem prior to your comment. On 20/10/13 14:17, David Personette wrote: > I have a laptop running 10.8.5 that's working. I had to remove the > /overlay/etc/rc.local file and reboot before Dave's /etc/fixdaemons > would show up. My saved configuration was stopping it from working. > > -- > David P. > > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Fred Stratton > wrote: > > Spoke too soon . Machine running OS X 10.8.5 cannot obtain > wireless DHCP lease. Machine running 10.7.5 has no problem. > > > On 20/10/13 06:41, Dave Taht wrote: > > + sync with openwrt > + dnsmasq 2.67rc4 > + get_cycles() and /dev/random fixes > + mild firewall changes > + actually sort of tested > - sysupgrade still busted > - didn't package the jitter rng > > The simple expedient of putting a script in /etc/rc.local to > restart > pimd, minissdpd, and dnsmasq 60 seconds after boot appears to > get us a > working dhcp/dns on the wifi interfaces once again. > > dnsmasq wasn't busted, it was how it interfaces to netifd. the > march > down to something deployable resumes with rc4. > > This is the first test that I know of, of some of the RNG fixes > upstream, notably the mips code does the right thing with a highly > optimized "get_cycles()". > > There are two changes to the firewall code > > 1) There has been a long-standing error in not blocking port 161 > (snmp) from the outside world. It is now blocked by default. > > Although I am not aware of any exploits of this (besides the > information leakage) I would recommend blocking this port by > default > on your existing builds, also, or disabling the snmp daemon > entirely > if you do not use it. > > 2) Usage of the "pattern matching syntax" on various firewall > rules. > > Instead of 3 rules for se00,sw00,sw10, and 4 for > gw00,gw10,gw01,gw11 > there are now 1 rule for s+ and one rule for gw+ > > This does not show up in the web interface correctly. I'd also > like to > get to a more efficient rule set for the blocked ports, > perhaps with > ipset... > > ... > > It's sort of my hope that with these fixes that the march > towards a > stable release can resume, and we get some fresh shiny new > bugs out of > this. > > Upcoming next are a revised version of pie, more random number > fixes, > and I forget what else. > > > 3) > > > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > >