Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 05:43:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: archie@whistle.com (Archie Cobbs) Cc: jim.king@mail.sstar.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DHCP client/server integration (import proposal) Message-ID: <199804170543.WAA00853@usr07.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199804170140.SAA03406@bubba.whistle.com> from "Archie Cobbs" at Apr 16, 98 06:40:10 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > But this brings up another question: If the DHCP client only gets NAK > > responses should it still allocate a 10/8 address for itself, or should it > > take this to mean that it shouldn't be using the network at all? > > Good question.. this should only happen if all the addresses are > used up. I'd say it shouldn't be using the network at all... but > try again later. Talking on 10/8 is probably not going to help anything. This is irrelevent. Windows 98 will do this. If Windows 98 implies an algorithm on top of the DHCP algorithms, it has to be supported. It's simply not relevent whether or not it's a good idea. If it's not expressly *forbidden* by the RFC's (like their option negotiation) it *must* be supported, if only for reasons of interoperability. Microsoft sucks, but in sucking, pulls other OS's in the direction they want to go... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804170543.WAA00853>