Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 00:42:29 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> To: Akihiro Tominaga <tomy@gunpowder.Stanford.EDU> Cc: brian@utell.co.uk, hackers@freebsd.org, tomy@dynamite.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: (wide) DHCP negotiation using the REQUEST_IPADDR option Message-ID: <199701180042.AAA02128@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:34:21 PST." <199701172134.NAA11162@dynamite.Stanford.EDU>
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.
[.....]
Right, so we're agreed ? Currently, the code returns -1 (remains silent) if
it has a cid & a *different* IP that the one suggested by the client. My
patch says it should NAK it.
I'll roll the patch into FreeBSD 'till the next wide-dhcp release. Are there
any guess-timates on the next (beta) release ?
--
Brian <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>, <brian@freebsd.org>
<http://www.awfulhak.demon.co.uk/>;
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701180042.AAA02128>