Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 13:01:48 +0000 From: John Howie <john@thehowies.com> To: "sthaug@nethelp.no" <sthaug@nethelp.no> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Patches for BOOTP/DHCP code to support Windows Server DHCP Message-ID: <0FF4F173-8D6A-4664-AA31-FB1BF28A7E74@thehowies.com> In-Reply-To: <20140601.143033.41674928.sthaug@nethelp.no> References: <CFB0A140.426CB%john@thehowies.com> <20140601.082448.74710838.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CFB110B6.42746%john@thehowies.com>, <20140601.143033.41674928.sthaug@nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Steinar, I could ask you to 'prove it', too, but I can easily check when I get back = from my current travels :-) It important to note that even if it does (as I think it does) it is NOT in= violation of the RFC. The RFC simply says that if a client wants something= it should ask for it, and not that a server cannot send the options unsoli= cited. Best regards, John Sent from my iPhone On Jun 1, 2014, at 19:30, "sthaug@nethelp.no" <sthaug@nethelp.no> wrote: >> In short, no, I have no packet traces. Given that the DHCP code in the >> FreeBSD boot loader and NFS subsystem does not request those options, bu= t >> that ISC-DHCP does provide them, I will go out on a limb and say that it >> must be serving them without being asked if they are configured. >=20 > In that case I'm afraid I must stand by my claim that you're wrong > and ISC DHCP does *not* provide configured options unless the client > asks for them. >=20 > (And I have copious amounts of packet sniffer traces to prove this.) >=20 > Not that this is particularly relevant to FreeBSD any more... >=20 > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0FF4F173-8D6A-4664-AA31-FB1BF28A7E74>