Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:34:21 -0800 From: Akihiro Tominaga <tomy@gunpowder.Stanford.EDU> To: brian.somers@utell.net Cc: brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk, hackers@freebsd.org, tomy@dynamite.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: (wide) DHCP negotiation using the REQUEST_IPADDR option Message-ID: <199701172134.NAA11162@dynamite.Stanford.EDU> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Jan 1997 12:02:01 -0100" References: <199701101202.MAA10949@ui-gate.utell.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: "Brian Somers" <brian.somers@utell.net>
Subject: (wide) DHCP negotiation using the REQUEST_IPADDR option
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 12:02:01 -0100
> I'm not sure about the original logic behind returning -1 above.
There is a paragraph in the recent I-D, pg 32;
If the network is correct, then the DHCP server should check if the
client's notion of its IP address is correct. If not, then the
server SHOULD send a DHCPNAK message to the client. If the DHCP
server has no record of this client, then it MUST remain silent,
and MAY output a warning to the network administrator. This
behavior is necessary for peaceful coexistence of non-communicating
DHCP servers on the same wire.
It is important if there are more than two servers in the same
segment. If a server with an expired lease sends NAK, and a server
with a valid lease sends ACK, the behavior of the client depends on
which packet has arrived first.
# I may be wrong, because I don't catch up recent drafts well....
# If I'm wrong, please let me know.
> If anyone's interested in reproducing this, make sure that you delete the
> arp entry on the server box while the win95 box is shut down..... I wasted
> a lot of time here !
Thank you for your report.
Visiting Researcher of Stanford Univ.
Mosquito Net Project.
Keio Univ.
WIDE Project.
Akihiro Tominaga (tomy@mosquitonet.stanford.edu)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701172134.NAA11162>