Re: NT 3.51 behavior

Ken Key <key@tgv.com> Thu, 30 May 1996 05:31 UTC

Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:30:17 -0400
Message-Id: <199605300456.VAA08764@Mel-Brooks.Cisco.COM>
Errors-To: droms@bucknell.edu
Reply-To: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Originator: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Precedence: bulk
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Ken Key <key@tgv.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: NT 3.51 behavior

[problem description and Shawn's on-the-money analysis deleted]
> 
> 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".

I agree that Microsoft sending the hostname is fine, it falls nicely
into the catagory of supplying "hints".  However, the DHCP Server is
THE authoritative source of client information.  If the server tells 
you that your hostname is soemthing different that what you're suggesting, 
then the client MUST use the hostname of the server.  That the Microsoft
clients ignore the hostnames that the server sends the is broken and
that they bitch into the event log about receiving a hostname in the
tag is higly annoying.

K^2, who's tired of having his event log filled with the above messages.
--
Ken Key    (key@tgv.com)  | cisco Systems, Inc.   | (Formerly TGV, Inc.)  
+1 (408) 457-5200 (voice) | 101 Cooper St.        | We are Borg of cisco.
+1 (408) 457-5208 (fax)   | Santa Cruz, CA  95060 | Prepare to be assimilated.

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