From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 1 07:30:29 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D6816A4CE for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:30:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu (lennier.cc.vt.edu [198.82.162.213]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAAC43FEA for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:29:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cgaylord@vt.edu) Received: from steiner.cc.vt.edu (IDENT:mirapoint@evil-steiner [10.1.1.14]) by lennier.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1FTRHL433276; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:29:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from vt.edu (e028121.vtacs.vt.edu [63.164.28.121]) by steiner.cc.vt.edu (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR) with ESMTP id CCA43516; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:29:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCB5E55.1090402@vt.edu> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:29:25 -0500 From: Clark Gaylord User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luigi Rizzo References: <20031201055447.A87811@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20031201055447.A87811@xorpc.icir.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: proposed bootpd change X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:30:29 -0000 Luigi Rizzo wrote: > I can think of two ways to enable the user to configure the > client port, one is to add a command-line flag to bootpd, the > other one is to infer the client port number from the server > port number, which is what the attached patch does. > > Would people be comfortable with modifying bootpd in one > of these two ways ? I agree that this would be a desirable feature. Whether to allow a client port other than bootps_port+1 is an interesting question. I don't recall the spec prohibiting it, but one could imagine someone somewhere wanting to use 1067 and 10068. I don't know that we want to accomodate that ... seems a bit feeping to me ... but it is an interesting question. Maybe for that we say "if you are that insane, you have to edit /etc/services". Perhaps a case 'p' in "Read switches" block? Or maybe it is time to reuse 's'? How long has it been deprecated? --ckg