Re: Server NAKs

Mike Carney - Sun BOS Software <mwc@poori.east.sun.com> Tue, 11 June 1996 17:27 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20495; 11 Jun 96 13:27 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20491; 11 Jun 96 13:27 EDT
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14571; 11 Jun 96 13:27 EDT
Received: from localhost by reef.bucknell.edu with SMTP (5.65/IDA-1.2.8) id AA16238; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:19:58 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:19:58 -0400
Message-Id: <9606111707.AA21124@poori.East.Sun.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: Mike Carney - Sun BOS Software <mwc@poori.east.sun.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: Server NAKs
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Pronto E-Mail [Ver 2.1 (0603)]

> Question:  Should a server on subnet "A" that is servicing another 
> subnet "B" NAK invalid requests on subnet "A"?  
> 
> We have a subnet 192 on which there are two DHCP servers.  One services
> the 192 subnet and the other  another external subnet 12.  The second 
> server, which has no definition of the 192 subnet in its tables, issues
> NAKs whenever it detected an improper address for the 192 subnet.
> 
> This seems to conform to the RFC but I wanted to verify with the working
> group.
> 

Yes, this behavior is correct, as per the RFC>

Mike Carney
SunSoft PC Networking
Chelmsford, MA