Re: [dhcwg] Re: Re: Re: udhcpd Win98 interoperability

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 23 August 2002 16:42 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11565 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7NGhXG16533 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:43:33 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7NGhXo16530 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:43:33 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11518 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:42:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7NGedo16434; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:40:40 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7NGdoo16406 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:39:50 -0400
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11390 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:38:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dsl-64-193-175-153.telocity.com [64.193.175.153]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.6/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g7NGaav06120; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:36:36 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from tongpanyi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.12.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g7NGdgGh000333; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:39:42 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:39:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: Re: Re: udhcpd Win98 interoperability
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482)
Cc: RussDill <Russ.Dill@asu.edu>, dhcwg@ietf.org
To: cstueckjuergen@web.de
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <200208230659.g7N6xsX23089@mailgate5.cinetic.de>
Message-Id: <ECB2DC7C-B6B6-11D6-B191-00039367340A@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> OK, I would say the requested address should be NAKed if
> - we have static mapping for it on another client
> - it is already assigned to one of our other clients
> - it was assigned to the requesting client, but the lease has already 
> timed out

I think you already intended this, but just to be sure, you should also 
send a NAK if the requested network doesn't match the client's current 
location.   In order for this to work properly, though, the DHCP server has 
to have an accurate understanding of what subnets are connected to what 
physical networks, since you don't want the server to send a DHCPNAK just 
because it isn't aware that the client's subnet is valid for the network to 
which it is attached.

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