IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NT 3.51 dhcp client and server ip address

Ralph Droms <droms@bucknell.edu> Wed, 04 December 1996 18:25 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa17530; 4 Dec 96 13:25 EST
Received: from marge.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15835; 4 Dec 96 13:25 EST
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by mail.bucknell.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/17Jul96-0109PM) id AA01050; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:05:43 -0500
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:05:43 -0500
Message-Id: <v02130542aecb5e49a808@[134.82.18.240]>
Errors-To: droms@bucknell.edu
Reply-To: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Originator: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Sender: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Ralph Droms <droms@bucknell.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: NT 3.51 dhcp client and server ip address
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
Mime-Version: 1.0

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email