Re: DHCPDECLINE doubt...
KEY@tgv.com Thu, 28 March 1996 14:23 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17306;
28 Mar 96 9:23 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17302;
28 Mar 96 9:23 EST
Received: from coral.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06440;
28 Mar 96 9:23 EST
Received: from charcoal-gw.eg.bucknell.edu by coral.bucknell.edu;
(5.65v3.0/1.1.8.2/29Aug94-0956AM)
id AA14282; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:21:16 -0500
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by charcoal (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA15556; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:12:00 -0500
Received: from HQ.TGV.COM by reef.bucknell.edu with SMTP
(5.65/IDA-1.2.8) id AA08525; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:11:53 -0500
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 06:11:48 -0800 (PST)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: KEY@tgv.com
Subject: Re: DHCPDECLINE doubt...
X-Orig-Sender: KEY@tgv.com
To: Rajesh Saluja <rsaluja@wipinfo.soft.net>,
DHCP MAILING LIST <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Cc: KEY@tgv.com
Reply-To: KEY@tgv.com
Message-Id: <828022308.240203.KEY@TGV.COM>
In-Reply-To: <199603281103.QAA17785@comm10>
Mail-System-Version: <MultiNet-MM(379)+TOPSLIB(158)@TGV.COM>
Whoops, thought we fixed that back in August. The concensus then was that it should be broadcast and a quick survey showed that existing implementions were using broadcast. regards, Ken Key > In draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-06.txt, in section 4.4.4, it is mentioned that > the client unicasts DHCPDECLINE message. I feel that it is not correct. > In DHCPDECLINE, the source address will be zero (client will still be > unconfigured) then if the server is not on the local net, how will the client > be able to unicast the message to the server? I think that it should be > broadcast. Any thoughts??? > > Best regards > Rajesh > ------- Ken Key (key@tgv.com) | 101 Cooper St. | +1 (408) 457-5200 (voice) TGV, Inc. | Santa Cruz, CA 95060 | +1 (408) 457-5208 (fax)
- DHCPDECLINE doubt... Rajesh Saluja
- Re: DHCPDECLINE doubt... KEY
- Re: DHCPDECLINE doubt... Ralph Droms