Re: DHCPDECLINE doubt...
Ralph Droms <droms@bucknell.edu> Wed, 03 April 1996 00:17 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26770;
2 Apr 96 19:17 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26766;
2 Apr 96 19:17 EST
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15656;
2 Apr 96 19:16 EST
Received: from localhost by reef.bucknell.edu with SMTP
(5.65/IDA-1.2.8) id AA12406; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:16:33 -0500
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:16:33 -0500
Message-Id: <v02120d04ad86b2ea7b2d@[134.82.7.153]>
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: Ralph Droms <droms@bucknell.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: DHCPDECLINE doubt...
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
Mime-Version: 1.0
At 6:11 AM 3/28/96, KEY@TGV.COM wrote: >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. Sorry I missed that change. I'll get it into the next revision of the protocol spec. - Ralph
- DHCPDECLINE doubt... Rajesh Saluja
- Re: DHCPDECLINE doubt... KEY
- Re: DHCPDECLINE doubt... Ralph Droms