RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Thu, 07 March 2002 03:01 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 WAA24584 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:01:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id WAA08468 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:02:03 -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 WAA08019; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:00:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA07973 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:00:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24499 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:00:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (sjc-vpn1-150.cisco.com [10.21.96.150]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA16365 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:59:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020306215847.037abc20@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 21:59:34 -0500
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question
In-Reply-To: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNGEAFDLAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
References: <A828DD9A-3159-11D6-8B5E-00039367340A@nominum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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

At 10:42 AM 3/6/2002 -0800, Richard Barr Hibbs wrote:


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 15:27
> >
> > I don't see what kind of traction you'd expect to get by telling a DHCP
> > server that gave you unacceptable parameters on a DHCPACK that you no
> > longer want the IP address.
> >
>...I agree that a client should not arbitrarily change it's mind about a
>lease, just observing that we don't seem to have fully specified all of the
>cases, and trying to shine a little daylight on one or two....

Yup, that's what I'm trying to get out of this conversation, too.

Someone outside the DHC WG asked the question, so it seems worth exploring.

- Ralph



><Snip!*>
>
> > So if the server is broken and sends different information in the DHCPACK
> > than in the DHCPOFFER, the client can either accept what the server sent,
> > or write the server off as broken.   Sending a DHCPRELEASE and then
> > reconfiguring isn't going to work, and neither is sending a DHCPDECLINE -
> > the server is broken, and no protocol action is going to fix it.
> >
>...I agree, but I've also been trying to think of any cases where a client
>might find that an option value sent by a server just doesn't work after
>receiving a DHCPACK, and whether or not there is any possible recourse.  The
>only one I can think of it DNS server addresses:  if they are wrong, the
>client is effectively useless for many purposes, the client is not likely to
>learn of a bad DNS address until after it has received a DHCPACK, and there
>isn't a heck of a lot that the client (or protocol) could do about that, so
>your summary seems to be the end of the discussion.
>
>--Barr
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


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