From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 18 03:19:00 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id DAA17671 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jan 1995 03:19:00 -0800 Received: from minnow.render.com (render.demon.co.uk [158.152.30.118]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA17651 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 1995 03:18:49 -0800 Received: (from dfr@localhost) by minnow.render.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id KAA03925; Wed, 18 Jan 1995 10:47:19 GMT Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 10:47:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Doug Rabson To: Terry Lambert cc: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: DHCP and diskless support In-Reply-To: <9501171615.AA26668@cs.weber.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 17 Jan 1995, Terry Lambert wrote: > > I just looked at the DHCP patch and it does not support dynamic address > > allocation. All it does is include DHCP options in the reply packets > > supporting the DHCP DISCOVER->OFFER->REQUEST->ACK process. The addresses > > come from /etc/bootptab as before. > > OK, so it's still suitable for WfWG 3.1, Windows 95, and NT clients, > making it Microsoft Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. > > And it's a step in the right direction for Internet Dynamic Host > Configuration Protocol. > > Now that we've arrived at what it looks like... 8^)... > > Does it get committed? What does the author say about distributability? I have a patched tree here which builds. I could commit as soon as I can test it a bit. I even have a couple of NT and WfW boxes to test the DHCP bit. I will try and contact the author about it first though. -- Doug Rabson, RenderMorphics Ltd. Mail: dfr@render.com Phone: +44 71 251 4411 FAX: +44 71 251 0939