RE: NT 3.51 dhcp client and server ip address

[Pratik Gupta <[e-mail]>]

I believe we should leave it as it is. Most current implementations
supporting multiple interfaces correctly, already put in the address
of the correct interface. 

This is just a clarification. Not any change in protocol.
A clarification can be issued at a later date which can deal with all the
issues relating to multihomed server, multiple logical subnets on a wire etc. 
As far as fixing some servers is concerned, they will have to do it
on their own schedule irrespective of when this clarification is made
in this draft or another document. 

 
Pratik


On Wednesday, December 04, 1996 1:02 PM, Ralph Droms[SMTP:[e-mail]] wrote:
> At 6:54 PM 12/3/96, Ted Lemon wrote:
> >In general, it just seems like a bad idea to
> >have multiple identifiers referring to the same object.
> 
> Yeah - looks like we blew it by overloading the "identifier" field to also
> act as the "return address" field.
> 
> We can either fix it or leave it:
> 
>   * Fixing will delay the advancement to Draft Standard, as it would
>     represent a fairly basic change to the behavior of clients and
>     servers.
> 
>   * Leaving it leaves the problem with multiple identifiers for a single
>     server - as pointed out by Ted - unfixed.
> 
> Discussion?
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> 
>