IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Minimum length of DHCP packet ?

Mike Carney - Sun BOS Software <Mike.Carney@east.sun.com> Fri, 08 March 1996 19:04 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16951; 8 Mar 96 14:04 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16947; 8 Mar 96 14:04 EST
Received: from coral.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11251; 8 Mar 96 14:03 EST
Received: from charcoal-gw.eg.bucknell.edu by coral.bucknell.edu; (5.65v3.0/1.1.8.2/29Aug94-0956AM) id AA00720; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:50:24 -0500
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by charcoal (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA05068; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:37:34 -0500
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM by reef.bucknell.edu with SMTP (5.65/IDA-1.2.8) id AA18645; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:37:32 -0500
Received: by mercury.Sun.COM (Sun.COM) id JAA29224; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:37:22 -0800
Received: from suneast.East.Sun.COM by East.Sun.COM (5.x/SMI-5.3) id AA24205; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:37:17 -0500
Received: from poori.East.Sun.COM by suneast.East.Sun.COM (5.0/SMI-4.1-900117) id AA15343; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:34:36 -0500
Received: from canoepoint by poori.East.Sun.COM (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA05658; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:34:30 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:34:30 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Mike Carney - Sun BOS Software <Mike.Carney@east.sun.com>
Message-Id: <9603081734.AA05658@poori.East.Sun.COM>
To: weber@tungsten.seattle.geoworks.com, Mike.Carney@east.sun.com
Subject: Re: Minimum length of DHCP packet ?
Cc: tomy@sfc.wide.ad.jp, dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
X-Mailer: Pronto E-Mail [version 2.01]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 
> I did say that the client should send out at least 300 bytes to ensure
> that finicky relay agents don't dump it.  I just don't see any reason
> why the relay agent or server should dump _incoming_ packets because
> of the packet size being small.
> 
> If I'm missing something, please let me know.  What is the advantage
> of refusing to accept an otherwise valid DHCP or BOOTP message if it
> is smaller than 300 bytes?  In other words, why was the 300 byte
> requirement put into the RFC in the first place?
> 
> -- Eric Weber
>    weber@geoworks.com
> 
> 
> 

The only reason is to ensure interoperability with existing relay agents 
and BOOTP clients. Our server (and clients) will work with BOOTP 
clients/servers, and some BOOTP implementations also reject short packets. 
(correct behavior, given that a BOOTP packet is supposed to be fixed at 300 
bytes). Why and how they arrived at a size of 300 bytes, I couldn't say. 
Walt?

Mike Carney
SunSoft PC Networking
Chelmsford, MA

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email