From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jan 17 17:25:57 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA12421
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dynamite.Stanford.EDU (root@dynamite.Stanford.EDU [171.64.65.12])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA12411
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mosquitonet.Stanford.EDU (tomy@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dynamite.Stanford.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA11735; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:25:52 -0800
Message-Id: <199701180125.RAA11735@dynamite.Stanford.EDU>
To: brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: (wide) DHCP negotiation using the REQUEST_IPADDR option 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 18 Jan 1997 00:42:29 +0000"
References: <199701180042.AAA02128@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.54 on Emacs 19.28.1, Mule 2.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:25:51 -0800
From: Akihiro Tominaga <tomy@gunpowder.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: (wide) DHCP negotiation using the REQUEST_IPADDR option 
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 00:42:29 +0000

> 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.

No, I'm not.  I think, you didn't understand what I meant.

Client requests address 'A'.
There is a server 'X' which has the binding that points address 'B'.
   'B' is already expired.
There is another server 'Y' which has the binding that points address 'A'.
   'A' is valid.

This is not illegal situation, and if 'X' sends NAK and 'Y' sends ACK,
there is no gurantee which packet arrives first.  So the behavior of
the client changes depending on arrivals of packets.

IMHO, the server should send back NAK only if the DHCPREQUEST is sent
to the server with Unicast IP address.

I guess, the word 'the server has no **record**' has vagueness.
I think it should be changed like the following sentence:

	the server has non-expired lease

I ask about it at the DHCPv4 ML.
--
Visiting Researcher of Stanford Univ.
Mosquito Net Project.
Keio Univ.
WIDE Project.
			Akihiro Tominaga (tomy@mosquitonet.stanford.edu)