Re: NT 3.51 behavior
Shawn Mamros <mamros@ftp.com> Wed, 29 May 1996 22:20 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03415;
29 May 96 18:20 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03410;
29 May 96 18:20 EDT
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16770;
29 May 96 18:20 EDT
Received: from localhost by reef.bucknell.edu with SMTP
(5.65/IDA-1.2.8) id AA25862; Wed, 29 May 1996 18:17:57 -0400
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 18:17:57 -0400
Message-Id: <199605292147.RAA22071@MAILSERV-2HIGH.FTP.COM>
Errors-To: droms@bucknell.edu
Reply-To: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Originator: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
X-Orig-Sender: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Precedence: bulk
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Shawn Mamros <mamros@ftp.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: NT 3.51 behavior
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
>I am using Microsoft NT 3.51 as a DHCP client to talk to our >server. Everything seems to be working fine but in the Event Log, >I am getting this "warning" message: > >--- >DHCP received an unknown option 012 of length 009. The >raw option data is given below. >--- > >The raw data actually shows the hostname returned by >the server which happens to be 9 bytes long. Option 12 >is the hostname tag (assuming 012 is in decimal and not octal). >Has anyone seen something like this with NT 3.51? What is >the cause of this warning? I'm not certain, but I can make a semi-educated guess... The NT DHCP client (and all Microsoft DHCP clients) actually use option 12 to transmit the client's hostname *to* the server. (Take a network trace sometime and see for yourself...) All machines running Microsoft networking, even DHCP clients, require that a hostname be set when the system is installed. Microsoft's NT DHCP server, in turn, can use this hostname, coupled with the IP address it provides, to update the WINS server database (which, in turn, can feed into an MS NT DNS server, thus providing their own form of dynamically updateable DNS). Because of this, there is no reason for their DHCP client to use a DHCP server-specified hostname (via option 12). I don't know why they felt that justified putting in a warning message, but they did... There's nothing in the DHCP specs that prohibits the use of option 12 in this manner, though it may seem a little "odd". (Any MS folks, feel free to point out any inaccuracies in the above...) -Shawn Mamros E-mail to: mamros@ftp.com
- NT 3.51 behavior Hank Yung (The Last In Line)
- Re: NT 3.51 behavior Shawn Mamros
- RE: NT 3.51 behavior Munil Shah
- Re: NT 3.51 behavior Edie E. Gunter
- Re: NT 3.51 behavior Ken Key
- Re[2]: NT 3.51 behavior Luke ROBERTS