IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 28 February 2002 17:14 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05461 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:14:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA15681 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:14:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA14734; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:05:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA14706 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:05:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04644 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:04:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (sdn-ar-008coauroP314.dialsprint.net [63.178.121.220]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g1SH0jX11575; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:00:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dechen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.10.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g1SH53M00588; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:05:03 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:05:03 -0700
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, Burcak Beser <burcak@juniper.net>
To: Steve Gonczi <steve@relicore.com>
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <BFELJLKGHEJOPOPGJBKKMEMOCAAA.steve@relicore.com>
Message-Id: <4E47CB1C-2C6D-11D6-94F4-00039317663C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Conceptually I see no problem with the client declining for some other
> reason.  E.g.: the client examined the option list
> it received, and did not like one/some of them.

This is a giant can of worms that we don't want to open.   Right now, I 
think that DHCP Decline means "this address is in use by some other client.
"   Changing the semantics of DHCP Decline right now is a bad idea.   If we 
need a message that says "I don't like this response, and won't use it," 
then we should invent a new message.   DHCP Release would do the job, 
except that it doesn't indicate that the client is rejecting the address - 
just that the client isn't going to use it.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email